User:GordonTonde/sandbox

Political Jurisprudence
Political jurisprudence...(continuation from existing article)

Political jurisprudence can also be seen as a discipline of law. Unlike natural law which answers the fundamental law question by placing law as inherent in the hierarchy of nature, political jurisprudence present the answer as being deliberate human political process. Political jurisprudence presents law as a revolving concept which changes due to change in political perspectives.

Political jurisprudence is necessitated by the nature of Constitutional Law. The nature of a country's Constitution as a political and at the same time a legal document creates grey areas in law where judges interpret the law according to their personal views.

Shapiro presents political jurisprudence as having two wings, the macro wing and the micro wing. The macro wing looks at courts as players in the political process. In their processes of decision making, they entertain matters from different interest groups hence shape policy through pressure from these. the micro wing looks at individual decisions of judges. The second wing is a manifestation of Charles H. Pritchett who introduced behaviorism into USA judicial studies after studies that showed individual decisions in courts have been increasing since the days of President Roosevelt.

History of Political Jurisprudence
Political jurisprudence as a term was coined by Shapiro, but some legal scholars trace existence of activist judges to the 14th Century A.D where Justice W. Bereford is presented as an activist judge who made decisions based on personal biases.

Universality of Political Jurisprudence
The Pakistani coup d’état, and a judgment of the Turkish Constitutional Court have been presented as evidence of the universal existence of political jurisprudence. The constitutional court in Pakistan gave legitimacy to the coup d’état while the Turkish courts judged against a constitutional amendment which was procedurally correct.