Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite(n): 266, Zeilen: 23-32 |
Original: Seite(n): 3, Zeilen: 1-9 |
|
---|---|---|
So formuliert etwa W. Murphy treffend: „A final definitional matter is important, especially for Americans who often assume that judges have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. In fact, however, even in a constitutional democracy with a constitutional text and judicial review, all public officials sometimes interpret – and properly if not always conrectly so – the constitution. Not only judges but also legislators interpret when they resolve constitutional doubts for or against a bill as do executive officials when they decide they can, or cannot, consistently with their oaths of office carry out a particular Public policy. Even police officers engage in constitutional interpretation when they decide they can or cannnot arrest and / or search a suspect. Moreover, leaders of interest groups frequently offer |
A final definitional matter is important, especially for Americans who often assume that judges have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. In fact, however, even in a constitutional democracy with a constitutional text and judicial review, all public officials sometimes interpret - and properly if not always correctly so-the constitution. [8] Not only judges but also legislators interpret when they resolve constitutional doubts for or against a bill as do executive officials when they decide they can, or cannot, consistently with their oaths of office carry out a particular public policy. Even police officers engage in constitutional interpretation when they decide they can or cannot arrest and/or search a suspect. Moreover, leaders of interest groups frequently offer |
|
4.229
Seiten