What Is the Importance of the Legal Systems

The United States is virtually alone in allowing a federal court with general jurisdiction to rule on questions of constitutionality. Normally, these matters fall within the jurisdiction of a Supreme Court or a special constitutional court. France Innovation only allows bills to be sent back to court after they have passed through parliament and before they are signed into law by the president. In England, a court may review the validity of a duly enacted law, unless it is contrary to Community law; The same may be true for Scottish courts, although some say they can review British laws for compliance with the Act of Union 1707. Under the United Kingdom Human Rights Act, the courts of the United Kingdom may declare a law incompatible with the rights enshrined in the law. This does not invalidate the law or render it inoperative: it is then up to the executive and ultimately the legislature to decide what to do with the impugned legislation. In the United States, all state procedural laws must be fair, since the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state may deprive a citizen of „life, liberty, or property“ without due process. (The $200 fine plus court fees is designed to deprive you of property, i.e. money, if you break the speed limit.) Federal laws must also be fair because the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution has exactly the same procedural language as the Fourteenth Amendment. This suggests that some laws are more powerful or more important than others, which is true. The following section examines the different types of positive law and their relative importance. Summary of the differences between the civil and common law legal systems But suppose an employer fires an employee for not committing perjury (on the witness stand in a court case); The employer wanted the employee to cover up the company`s criminal or unethical act. Suppose that, as in the previous cases, there are no applicable laws and no employment contract.

Courts based on a finding or precedent that „employers may terminate employees for any reason or no reason“ could rule against an employee seeking termination compensation because he or she told the truth on the witness stand. Or it could make an exception to the general rule, such as: „Employers can generally fire employees for any reason or no reason without incurring legal liability; However, employers are held legally liable if they terminate an employee who refuses to lie on behalf of the employer in legal proceedings. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor once said, „I firmly believe that the rule of law is the foundation of all our fundamental rights.“ Fundamental rights are the human rights to which everyone is entitled. These include the right to life, the right to marry, the right not to be discriminated against and much more. These are listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but this document is not legally binding. To make human rights a reality, they must be protected by law. Without law, human rights would be an abstract concept. If you want to learn more about human rights, you should study a master`s degree. In a nation, law can be used to (1) maintain peace, (2) maintain the status quo, (3) preserve individual rights, (4) protect minorities from majorities, (5) promote social justice, and (6) ensure orderly social change. Some jurisdictions serve these purposes better than others. While a nation ruled by an authoritarian government can keep the peace and maintain the status quo, it can also oppress minorities or political opponents (e.g., Burma, Zimbabwe, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein). Under colonialism, European nations often forced peace in countries whose borders were created somewhat arbitrarily by the same European nations.

For several centuries before the twentieth century, empires were built by Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, Holland, France, Germany, Belgium and Italy. In terms of the functions of law, the empire may have kept the peace—largely by force—but it changed the status quo and rarely promoted Indigenous rights or social justice within the colonized nation. Beyond the court`s decision, when you look at the court`s reasoning, you are most likely to understand which facts were most important to the court and which theories (law schools) each trial or appellate judge believes. Because judges don`t always agree on the original principles (i.e., they join different law schools), there are many divided opinions in appellate judgments and in every term of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is easier to know what the law is than what it „should be.“ Equality laws, for example, have specific laws, rules and decisions on racial discrimination. There are always difficult questions of interpretation and decision, which is why the courts will clarify different opinions. But how can we know the more fundamental „should“ or „duty“ of human equality? For example, how do we know that „all men are created equal“ (from the Declaration of Independence)? Apart from questions about the equality of women or slaves who were not counted as equal men at the time of the declaration, can the claim be empirically proven, or is it simply a matter of a priori knowledge? (A priori means „to exist in the mind before and independently of experience.“) Or is the declaration of equality a matter of faith or worldview, neither scientifically nor rationally provable? The dialogue between natural law theorists and empirical theories about „what law is“ will raise similar questions. In this book, we will focus primarily on the law as it is, but not without also raising questions about what it could or should be. The judge is the final arbiter of the law. The judge has a duty to state positively what the law is. At trial, the judge assumes a passive role of „arbiter“ with respect to the defence counsel`s testimony.

The judge must also make evidentiary decisions and inform the jury of the applicable law. In addition, the judge should ensure that the order is made in the courtroom. Occasionally, if the parties agree, the judge may also act as trier of fact. This is called a „magistrate trial“. Federal court judges are appointed by the President with the „advice and consent“ of the Senate. Many state court judges are elected by popular vote. Legal systems vary considerably in their objectives and in the way they deal with civil and criminal cases. Common law systems use juries, have a judge and respect precedents. Civil law systems adjudicate cases without a jury, often appoint three judges, and often issue shorter opinions without reference to cases that have already been decided. „Law is the command of a sovereign“ represents which school of legal thought? Written legal opinions are therefore a good playground for developing critical thinking by identifying the problem in a case and examining the reasons for the court`s decision or previous decision.

What did the court actually decide and why? Keep in mind that a court, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, not only decides a particular case, but also sets guidelines (in its decisions) for federal and state courts facing similar problems. Note that court cases often raise a variety of questions or questions that need to be resolved, and judges (and lawyers) differ as to the nature of the real problem in a case. A holding company is the court`s complete answer to a crucial question for the decision of the case, thus giving clues about the importance of the case as a precedent for future cases.