Other
LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 2 SOLUTIONS (SEMESTER 2) 2024( FROM PRESCRIBED BOOK MATERIALS) //wa.me/
- Course
- Institution
LJU4801 ASSIGNMENT 2 SOLUTIONS (SEMESTER 2) 2024( FROM PRESCRIBED BOOK MATERIALS) //
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
ruvarashebango
Reviews received
Content preview
LJU4802 ASSIGNMENT 2 ANSWERS OF SEMESTER 2 OF 2024, QUESTION1
Philosophical Approaches in Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape
of Good Hope (2002)
Introduction
The landmark case of Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good
Hope 2002 (2) SA 794 (CC) serves as a pivotal exploration of the tension between
individual rights and state interests within South African constitutional law. The case
primarily revolves around the constitutional right to freedom of religion, as protected
by Section 15 of the Constitution of South Africa, and the extent to which the state
can justifiably limit this right in the interest of public health and safety.
The Majority Approach- Legal Positivism and Public Interest
The majority judgment in the Prince case, delivered by Ngcobo J, embodies a legal
positivist approach. Legal positivism is characterized by a focus on the letter of the
law and a strict interpretation of legal texts without necessarily considering the
broader moral implications. In this context, the majority held that while the right to
freedom of religion is fundamental, it is not absolute. The state has a legitimate
interest in regulating activities that could harm public health and safety, including the
use of cannabis, which is classified as a prohibited substance under the Drugs and
Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 and the Medicines and Related Substances Control
Act 101 of 1965.
The majority argued that the prohibition on the use of cannabis, even for religious
purposes, was justified under Section 36 of the Constitution, which allows for the
limitation of rights in a manner that is reasonable and justifiable in an open and
democratic society. The court emphasized the difficulty in enforcing an exemption for
religious use, as it would challenge the ability of law enforcement to effectively
regulate cannabis use and could potentially open the floodgates for widespread
abuse. The state’s interest in protecting public health and preventing drug abuse was
deemed a "pressing social purpose" that outweighed the individual’s right to religious
freedom in this context.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ruvarashebango. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.86. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
49497 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now