South Koreas Constitutional Court Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

South Koreas Constitutional Court - Essay ExampleAs such, the judicial court systems operate independently despite the profile of the consequence or the people involved. The constitution in the US caters for the restriction of gun and marijuana. The national fire arm act (1934), the gun control act and the Brady board among others stated the rules and set regulation of ownership. However, in 2009, the US begun considering a review of these regulations just like in South Korea. The motive behind the gun control, however, is more than political and elite influenced than neutrally viewed. For instance, Chicago mayor Daleys protection is catered for by the taxpayers money in hiring the bodyguards, but the citizens are denied by law to bind themselves using guns. The drug controls on the other side in the US traffickers are hunted down more than the users.It is evident that the elites who take part in most court eludings have political motives rather than the quest for justice. As fo r this issue, a politician may decide to pick on a case in court for the purpose of gaining political ground or fame. Cases in Korea of such kinds arise when there is disagreement between different parties or individuals in the line of politics (Dae & Tae-gyu, 1990, p. 138). As such, the constitution is often defied by the political systems. In the US, this is not the case. The influence of parties is not let in any federal agency except for the amicus curiae in common terms friend of the court This requires filing.Court is viewed as an option in the effect that the political influence is hindered. When the political salubrious holders cannot have any influence in achieving their interest, the court can be used in ensuring balanced justice. In the case of varied opinion on issues under controversy, the political influence and interest may overpower any other option. Taking an example of the gun ownership and marijuana use in the US, the political sides have always been against the m thus influencing most cases in court.