Judicial Amendment


AbstractJurisprudence doesn’t recognize the need for interpretation, it is absolutely the requirements of the law. The clarification of the legislator's purposes and a questionnaire and his intention to achieve its goals is necessary due to the ambiguity of the text or laconic or obsolescence of time on it. The text is not prescribed for a specific time only in exceptions, and the origin of its provisions aim for an unidentified goal. The need for constitutional interpretation, stands out in countries with democratic systems or current nations who strive to reach such system. In democratic systems judicial interpretation aims to develop legal texts in terms of concept and meaning without the need for replacement. Achieving replacement is not always within reach. Constitutional texts may go on for years or decades without any replacements which explain the difficulty of the process to create a constitutional text in democratic systems and pluralism. All of these developments call for the presence of other interpretations that define capability of finding solutions without the intervention of legislation, Since the pursuit of developments in a democratic country such as the United States is not always within reach. As for countries that strive for democracy, they highlight the importance of interpretation of the constitution. So, the modern era means modern era of pluralistic constitutions in addition to the problems that affect the result of modern understanding of democracy and pluralism and partisan life. Political break-outs are common in their nature due to the margins of freedom in addition to the unusual political views as well as the new underdeveloped political perspectives which are based on non-legal basis. In dictatorship, and in the absence of constitutional institution and political parties, the constitutional interpretation has no importance. In other words, the interpretation constitution has no role or any legal activity without the dictator's consent, only when it is needed. Noting that the better solution, if not distorting the text, replacing or amending the whole legislation to suit the problem. The absence of interpretation does not mean the absence of the responsible committee, they may still be present but they will be limited to personal will. On consequence, that will oppose with margin of freedom that should be within the interpreter.