If function of the courts is to interpret the law how do they become a source of the law discuss this statement?
The courts determine what the law says when it was passed by the legislature. The wording may not be what the legislature intended. Then the court is stating a position and law enforcement and people will depend upon their interpretation of what it means. It is doubtful that the original writers and approvers of the Constitution intended for it to be against the law for there to be prayer in school. Or that the pledge of alligence would be banned from public schools.
They essentially make law when they have to interpret the meaning of the statute. Also, if there is no statute on the issue, they make law in equity.
2 people found this useful
There are five sources of law: 1) constitution 2) legislation 3) interpretation of legislation by the courts 4) common law and equity 5) precedents
There are five sources of law: 1) constitution 2) legislation 3) interpretation of legislation by the courts 4) common law and equity 5) precedents
Depending on the circumstances Judges and Lawyers are most frequently called upon to interpret the law in the United States. Judges do so as part of trials. Lawyers do so when seeking to advise their clients. Other specialists may interpret limited areas of the law under specific circumstances. For …example, an Environmental Engineer may interpret environmental laws and regualtions for a client to help the client understand what those laws and regulations permit or require him to do to protect the environment in a particular location. Anyone is permitted to interpret any law they choose to read, but there is no guarantee that their interpretation will be accepted by police or other government agencies charged with implementing or enforcing that law. Or in other words the judicial branch interperpets the laws ( Full Answer )
All courts have the power to interpret laws relevant to cases before them. The US Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on federal and constitutional law . Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, affords the Supreme Court the final authority to interpret laws, …determine the constitutionality of laws, and to apply laws on the books to individual cases brought before it. The Supreme Court, in its authority to interpret laws, may make changes to laws brought before it if those laws are deemed unconstitutional or contrary to the legalities that were established by the laws when they were originally written. Inferior courts may interpret and apply laws as they relate to everyday cases before them, but they cannot interpret any such laws in a manner that would defy rulings sent down by the Supreme Court. For example, all courts must adhere to the legal interpretations of the Supreme Court and by the Constitution. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case. Ultimately the task of interpreting laws that are on the books falls on the United States Supreme Court, but most laws are written in such a way that they would only be challenged if there were an issue with a law that was deemed contradictory to the Constitution. A good example of such a law that has come before the Supreme Court lately is the right for gay men and women to marry. Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, people under US jurisdiction (not just American citizens) are guaranteed equal treatment/protection under the law. The case law of the Fourteenth Amendment is the case law that has been brought before the Supreme Court for interpretation. Those parties who believe they have the right to marry whom they wish, man or woman, have argued to the Supreme Court that their Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated as states outlaw gay marriage. Those parties against gay marriage have argued that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and always has been. There are problems for both sides because the Constitution makes no mention of homosexual marriage or its legality. Another problem is the issue of state sovereignty, which allows a state to make its own laws without fear of reprisal from the Federal government. Since a concession cannot be reached, it is now the task of the Supreme Court to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment, weigh the arguments of both sides, and render a decision that falls in line with the Constitution, which ultimately has the final say, even though states do enjoy some freedom in making their own laws. ( Full Answer )
The Judicial Branch, or the courts. executive is president. jucicial is the court. and the legislative branch makes and interprets laws
In the United States there are several sources of law: United States Constitution United States Treaties Federal Case Law Federal Statutes State Case Law State Statutes The US Constitution and most statutes can be found online through the state or federal government. Some case law… may be found online without a subscription service, but most case law is found within your states west's reporter. ( Full Answer )
It can be. It is up to the prosecutor or the defense lawyer. They need to be notarized.
The courts of law are forums established by the Constitution tosettle disputes. A judge or jury decides the facts of the case andthe judge also governs the procedure according to the law.
The courts interpret a law when the meaning, application, or constitutionality of a law is part of a case before the court. Appellate courts are more likely to be called upon to interpret laws than trial courts.
Most states have laws in place to protect the rights of couples who have chosen to live together without getting married. These laws vary from state to state and deal with a variety of different scenarios. Many states do have laws that provide for couples who live together as if they were married…, even though no formal ceremony has taken place. Commonly known as "common-law marriages", parties who live together and behave as a married couple can often assume the same rights and benefits of couples who have walked down the aisle. ( Full Answer )
A law court is any officially sanctioned courtroom. Court of Law is just a term for it.
They're both descriptions (or interpretations if you wish) of reality as we understand it. A theory relates to how we understand a thing, and a "law" just describes how something should react.
Ghana should have a reliable source of our laws. They should be made available to the common Ghanaian.
If Congress disagrees on how the Court interprets a law, Congress amends the law to make the wording more clear on what Congress intends it to mean. The Supreme Court has the last say on the interpretation of a statute even if it knows Congress wants it interpreted a certain way. But once the statue… is amended to make its intent clear, then the Court has to deal with the new wording. ( Full Answer )
it is importnat because it is the principle law that governs all other sources of law
Yes, if the law is relevant to a case before the Court. The Supreme Court is often called upon to interpret federal laws that are not written clearly or haven't anticipated a particular situation in which it may be used. The Court attempts to determine Congress' intent and decide how it should be… applied. They may need to determine whether the law is too vague or over-broad to be applied, and may analyze the language to decide whether an otherwise constitutional law is being applied unconstitutionally. The justices also interpret the Constitution to determine whether federal laws are in compliance. If determined to be unconstitutional, the law is nullified and rendered unenforceable. ( Full Answer )
The Judicial Branch , or the federal court system , interprets the law. The US Supreme Court , head of the Judicial Branch, is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of federal law and the constitutionality of any law.
Law is wIf function of the courts is to interpret the law how do they become a source of the law discuss this statement?
This answer applies only to common law countries. If someone with knowledge of civil law countries wants to add anything that would be awesome. Generally there are two main sources of law. There is statute law (legislation) which is made by the government; and then there is "common law", which trac…es it's roots back to customs in England. Generally in any court case the court has to determine what the law is on a particular matter. This sounds straight forward, but can be difficult, depending on the circumstances of the case. When it does this, it essentially becomes a source of law. While the wording of legislature provides a frame, courts fill in some of the substance. In other cases the wording might not be very vague at all, but it may set out factors the court must consider, and then come to a reasonable conclusion. This could also be seen as the court being a source of law, by interpreting it. Regarding common law, depending on the country you are in, different parts of the law may be left to the common law. This means that you cannot read a statute to find out what the law is, but must read the cases. Judges use older cases to determine what the law is, then either apply it (if that works), extend it (if the case is outside the borders) or change it (if it is no longer fair and just). In this role they both create the law (although they usually pretend that they are only discovering what it is) and apply it. ( Full Answer )
The very simple answer to this question is Article III of the United States Constitution. All of the following information is great and accurate. It is considered to be the job of the legislative branch to create the laws, the job of the executive branch to carry out the laws, and the job of the j…udicial branch to interpret the law. However, this is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It was more clearly established in the Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison (1803). The issue in this case was that John Adams, in the closing hours of his presidency, had made several judicial appointments, which were signed and ready to be delivered, but not actually delivered. Upon taking office, Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions, since he was angry that Adams had attempted to pack the courts with federalist judges who disagreed with Jefferson's political views. One of those commissions was for a man named William Marbury. He took the matter to court. The Supreme Court ruled that Marbury did, in fact, have the right to his commission, but that the Court did not have the right to rule on this issue. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which had given the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus (which could be used to force Madison to deliver the commission), contradicted the Constitution and was therefore invalid. Thus, in this landmark case, the Supreme Court established the right of "judicial review," or the ability to say which laws are unconstitutional, essentially, interpreting the law. Alexander Hamilton stated, about the power of interpretation of the law, "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning." It is not an enumerated power, not even implicitly, not to any one or all of the three branches combined, nor to the States. None of them were delegated that power by the Constitution, so it is reserved to the People (that's usually where the Jury is supposed to come in and play the role when interpretation is needed) under US Const. art. Amend. X and can be administered through either or both Amendments VI and VII. "Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld". New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) ( Full Answer )
If no more people were to be born the law of Population growth would strongly resemble the radioactive decay law Discuss this statement?
I don't think you can say that. Radioactive decay is an inverse exponential process, where the number of disintegrations per unit of time is a function of the amount of material present. We measure this in half-lives, with half of the remaining material removed after each half life. (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, …1/16, 1/32, etc.). Population decay in the absence of a birth rate, however, would be a function of the probability of death, and the highest predictor of that probability is age. You would not expect people to live longer just because there are fewer of them.. Population decay would depend on the distribution of ages in the population. If that distribution were uniform, the decay would be linear, not inverse exponential. If the distribution were highly non uniform, such as everyone remaining being the same age, then the population decay would be abrupt, with everyone dying at the same statistical time.. In order to say that population decay is the same as radioactive decay, you would have to say that half the population is younger than the median age, and half of the remaining population is younger than the median age of that subset, and so forth. Since the birthrate is not proportional to the population, as only younger people have babies, this is not true. ( Full Answer )
The source of "common law" is previous Court decisions. It is often called judge made law Criminal law can contain court made law and government legislation Some laws are legislated, these may formalize common law, cover technical issues, and cover abstract issues.
Custom is a key source of law. A lot of laws start simply ascustoms. As time goes on and the custom becomes more accepted andpart of society, law makers may then codify that custom into law.
Yes it can be. This is called CASE LAW. And this is when a case comes in that perhaps there are laws for indirectly. When a judge makes a ruling on the case then this is called CASE LAW and future judges will likely follow this ruling for similar cases.
Islamic law is based upon four main sources: . The Quran: Muslims believe the Quran to be the direct words of Allah, as revealed to and transmitted by the Prophet Muhammad. All sources of Islamic law must be in essential agreement with the Quran, the most fundamental source of Islamic kno…wledge. When the Quran itself does not speak directly or in detail about a certain subject, Muslims only then turn to alternative sources of Islamic law . The Sunnah: Sunnah is the traditions or known practices of the Prophet Muhammad, many of which have been recorded in the volumes of Hadith literature. The resources include many things that he said, did, or agreed to -- and he lived his life according to the Quran, putting the Quran into practice in his own life. During his lifetime, the Prophet's family and companions observed him and shared with others exactly what they had seen in his words and behaviors -- i.e. how he performed ablutions, how he prayed, and how he performed many other acts of worship. People also asked the Prophet directly for rulings on various matters, and he would pronounce his judgment. All of these details were passed on and recorded, to be referred to in future legal rulings. Many issues concerning personal conduct, community and family relations, political matters, etc. were addressed during the time of the Prophet, decided by him, and recorded. The Sunnah can thus clarify details of what is stated generally in the Quran. . Ijma' (consensus): In situations when Muslims have not been able to find a specific legal ruling in the Quran or Sunnah, the consensus of the community is sought (or at least the consensus of the legal scholars within the community). The Prophet Muhammad once said that his community (i.e. the Muslim community) would never agree on an error. . Qiyas (analogy): In cases when something needs a legal ruling, but has not been clearly addressed in the other sources, judges may use analogy, reasoning, and legal precedent to decide new case law. This is often the case when a general principle can be applied to new situations. . refer to link below . ( Full Answer )
The US Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution to determine whether federal laws are in compliance, or legal. If not, the federal law becomes null and void and is unenforceable. They may also interpret a written law to determine whether it is too vague or over-broad to be applied, and m…ay analyze the language of the law to determine whether an otherwise constitutional law is being applied unconstitutionally. ( Full Answer )
depends on your case, if u r claiming that someone has done damage to your property and even though there is evidence of damage but did not see the person in actual action, then it's your word against theirs. if someone claims you hurt them and there is no evidence of trauma/ any physical evidence o…r even that u attacked them, and only liable witness decides not to testify, its your word against them. it's as simple as this i can say i don't know you, or know what u r talking about and u can say the same thing. why do u think cops help each other lie about being the other witness. because if there's no evidence to prove a cops case against you, then cops partner and back-up officers lie for cop claiming injury. whatever one cop say the other back it up. ( Full Answer )
Article III (constitutional) federal courts , which comprise the Judicial Branch of the US government, handle criminal and civil cases of general jurisdiction . Punishment (sentencing) is the trial courts' responsibility. . US District Court (trial court) . US Court of Appeals Circuit Cou…rts (intermediate appellate court) . Supreme Court of the United States (final appellate court) Other federal courts outside the Judicial Branch have special subject matter jurisdiction over cases that may involve interpreting law and punishing lawbreakers (e.g., US Tax Court, military tribunals), as well. ( Full Answer )
This is a basic civics question. The legislative branch enacts laws, courts interpret laws, the executive branch enforces the laws. Consult your U.S. Constitution, the constitution of your state for specifics regarding which specific law you are talking about (there are federal, state, and local (c…ounty, city, town, etc.) laws). ( Full Answer )
All nine members of the US Supreme Court interpret the law, then they discuss their perspectives on individual cases in twice-weekly conferences. When the Court votes on how to dispose a case, the decision with the most votes (the majority) writes the official opinion of the Court. If the Chief Jus…tice is a member of the majority, he may choose to write the opinion himself, or select another member of the majority to handle the task. If the Chief Justice is not part of the majority, then the most senior justice in that group decides who will write the opinion. If the justices not in the majority want to present a unified dissent, they decide amongst themselves who will write it. All members of the Court may write opinions about a particular case, explaining why they agree or disagree with the decision. For more information on US Supreme Court opinions, see Related Questions, below. ( Full Answer )
Definition and meaning of law: Law could be defined from different perspective. These perspectives will be explained below; Briefly, law is a body of rules that regulates conducts of individual in the society and it is administered and enforced by constitutional authority, in other words, law is t…he body of rules of social conduct which one recognized as obligatory by the people whose conduct it guides and which visits specific sanctions administered by authority. Law is said to be the principle and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. Law is when every group in a society work together and agree on what is best for then in other to maintain stability in their society. Law is very important in a society as it represent the values of the community as a whole. Law is a complex whole of many phenomena. The phenomena include the norms regulating behaviour and the machinery for their enforcement and administration. These norms that constitute the law present an orderly picture of the society in which the norms operates. Laws are made to take care of the interest of a particular group i.e. the rich people. This is because the rich people are in position to influence the making of law because they dominate the economy; therefore, law tends to resolve the constant conflict between the rich and the poor. Law is said to be impartial as it is agreeable to everyone within the society. According to John Austin (a Lawyer) he defined law as "a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being an intelligent being having power over him. This definition conforms to the imperative or command theory of law." John Salmond also defines law as " the body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice." Sources of Law Sources of law are the materials from which legal rules are made. These materials includes: Customs, religious believe, morality, habits, mores and folkways, whether written or not. Hence, legislation, codification, judicial precedents and equity are also sources of law. Sources of law are the materials and processes out of which law is developed. In modern nation states, the basic sources of law include a Constitution, statutes, case law, and regulations issued by government agencies. Sources of law for public international law and religious law differ, however, from the primary law of individual countries. The natural law theory argues that some rules objectively existing in the nature also are source of law, while legal positivism argues that only the rules made by sovereignty can be the sources of law. When talking about legislation as a source of law, it is the laws that result from activities of a law enacting body such as the legislature. In other words, when a group of people usually representing the sovereign, sit down to consciously deliberate and enact laws. Such body is regards to as legislature. The Customs and judicial precedent is another source of law which combines with the decision of judge in decided case of the past. Judges are bond by decision already reached by court in the past, when they are confronted with a new case with similar facts in this way, custom and judicial precedent serves as a source of law. Fairness and justness is another source of law which is commonly known as Equity. It enables one to ask if justice has been done even when the law has been followed to the letter. Adeyanju Ayotunde Email firstname.lastname@example.org ( Full Answer )
We are unable to answer this question at this time . Some one please help us.
How has the court exceeded its role as interpreter of the law and extended its authority into legislation?
Judges are not ignoring laws and introducing their own biases. Thisprocess inadvertently allows judges to exceed their authority inthe court of law.
With going really in-depth,some of the main sources of Nigerian law happens to be 1.Common law and Equity as handed down by the British who once colonised Nigeria.Most of the common law practises became entrenched in the Nigerian legal system as a result of British rule 2.Local Legislature:these a…re laws which were brought to being through the powers of the houses of assemblies in the political dispensation or edits and decrees in the military dispensation.These were laws brought in place to fit the peculiarities and meet the needs germain to the Nigerian people. 3.Custom and tradition of the people:the customs and traditions of the people were also recognised and brought into force as so far as the pass the repugnancy test,which amongst others state it must not fall foul of natural law equity and good conscience,must not be repugnant to natural justice or fall foul of the written law. ( Full Answer )
Courts in Britain sat either in law or in equity. Courts in the United States frequently have both types of status or power. Legal remedies are essentially monetary in nature. Equitable remedies ordinarily require action instead of money. For instance, an injunction or temporary restraining orde…r is an equitable remedy. ( Full Answer )
the word sources mean the development of which law become existing or the derivation of law. That is the meaning of the word sources of law.
Is there a single international world court responsible for enforcing and interpreting international law?
Yes there is, it is the World Court which is operated by the United Nations but which is located in the Hague, in the Netherlands, not in the main UN headquarters in New York City.
Making Process is when the legislature presents 2 or more solutions to a problem and the Supreme Ct chooses one process, thus influencing the outcome of the case.
The executive branch enforces the law, while the judicial branch interprets the law. Â Congress only makes the laws.
legislature IS law...laws originate with the legislative branch of government...while the other two branches(executive and judicial) have to approve
There is no way to give a specific answer to your question. Formal, written laws are made by Congress or by state legislatures, and are called enacted laws . The US Supreme Court is not a legislative (law-making) body, but its decisions carry the rule of law. Judicial decisions may become commo…n law , (or case law) which is enforceable, but different from the enacted laws created by the Senate and House of Representatives. Congress and the state legislatures may choose to codify common law, or transform it into enacted law, by passing legislation. The courts do not participate in this type of law-making. It is important to remember not all judicial decisions create common law; most simply interpret or apply existing laws. ( Full Answer )
The interpretive theory is known as contextualism , but judges or justices who are proponents of contextualism (and/or a Living Constitution) are often also accused of being judicial activists.
During the period of the Roman Republic the praetors were chief justices. They presided over all trials for criminal cases. However, they did not preside over all civil cases. For these they could assign the trial to judges, in which case they prescribed the remedies for the case, should the judge r…ule against the defendant. During the period of rule by emperors, the emperors were in change of justice and the praetors were turned into imperial bureaucrats. ( Full Answer )
Any state or federal court with jurisdiction over a case questioning the constitutionality of a law may declare a law unconstitutional; however, the Article III (constitutional) federal courts that comprise the Judicial Branch are most likely to try or review such cases. Constitutional chal…lenges may be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, provided the question has been preserved (raised at the trial level and at each appellate step thereafter). The most typical sequence in the federal courts is: . US District Court (trial) . US Court of Appeals Circuit Court (intermediate appellate) . Supreme Court of the United States (final appellate) Because the volume of cases petitioned to the Supreme Court each year is so high, most issues are resolved at the US District Court or Circuit Court level. ( Full Answer )
The Judicial Branch interprets the laws. The Legaslative Branch makes the laws. The Executive Branch carries out the laws.
In Roman times there were poor ordinary citizens, ordinary citizens and wealthy and powerful citizens and the emperor who sat in the highest point of all ranks. This produced a court in which government officials and the imperial family competed with poets, astrologers, doctors, slaves, and actors f…or the emperor's attention and favor. The emperor's own slaves and freedmen dominated the clerical and financial posts and formed the core of imperial administration just as they did in the household administration of any Roman aristocrat. Deep ties of loyalty bound Roman freedmen and slaves to their patrons so that they faithfully served even the most monstrous emperors. ( Full Answer )
Tennessee v. Garner is a civil case involving law enforcementofficers pursuing an unarmed suspect and using deadly force toprevent escape. In 1985 the Supreme Court of the United States heldthat the law enforcement officer may not use deadly force toprevent escape unless "the officer has probable ca…use to believethat the suspect poses a significant threat of death or seriousphysical injury to the officer or others." The Supreme Court ruledthat use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonableseizure under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. ( Full Answer )
Type your answer here... I believe that the Executive Branch interprets our laws, and if not that than it is most likely our Legislative Branch but I know it is not the Judicial Branch
The president does not sign a bill within 10 days of receiving it,and congress is still in session.
The people who acted as judges in ancient Rome were different from modern judges. Their system was different. During the Roman Republic (509-27 BC), the second highest ranking officers of state, the praetors were like chiefs justices. The praetors were not professional layers or judges. They were …politicians elected to the office. One of the praetores urbanus (urban praetors) presided over civil cases between Roman citizens and the administration of justice. Another one had the job of presiding over criminal proceedings (quaestiones perpetuae) and appointed jurors to vote for guilt or innocence. The praetor peregrinus, which roughly means chief justice for foreigners, presided over civil cases between Roman citizens and non-Romans. In was civil cases, the praetors could appoint a iudex (judge) and hand over a case to him. A judex was not a professional judge. He was an unpaid private person chosen from the list (album) drawn up according to wealth to decide a case referred to him by the praetor. If the case was heard by a panel of iudices (plural of judex), they were known as recuperatores. Proceedings held before the praetor in iure where the issues were framed for decision. The matter then went to the iudex for trial (apud iudicem). The ruling (iudicium) of the iudex was binding. The Praetors established a formula directing the iudex regarding the remedy to be ordered to the defendant if the ruling was against him. During the course of the period of rule by emperors, this two-stage process had largely disappeared. The praetor heard the whole case in person or appointed a delegate (a iudex pedaneus). The formula was replaced by an informal system of pleadings. The praetors also issued the Praetor's Edict, which stated the praetors' policy on judicial matters for their term of office. Praetors endorsed much of the content of previous edicts, thus ensuring continuity. Although praetors were not legislators and could not introduce new laws, they could make amendments. These introduced needed innovations. Therefore, the development an improvement of Roman law owed a lot to the praetors. Since the praetors were politicians, not lawyers, they often submitted consulta (written questions) to jurists (legal experts) and their replies were often used for the compilation of the edicts. Appeal cases were handled by the popular assemblies, not courts, until 82 BC, when Lucius Cornelius Sulla transferred the hearing of appeal cases to new jury courts which were controlled by the patricians to strengthen the power of the patricians (aristocracy). Augustus, the first Roman emperor reduced the praetors from officers of states to imperial administrators. The emperor was an absolute ruler, but used the state machinery of the Republic to exercise his power. The emperor presided over the highest courts of appeal. The praetors became officials of something akin to a department of justice. Emperor Claudius appointed two praetors for matters relating to trusts (fideicommissa); that is, property held by one party for the benefit of another. Titus reduced the number to one. Nerva created a Praetor to make rulings on matters between the treasury (fiscus) and citizens. Marcus Aurelius appointed a Praetor for handling guardianship (tutela) cases. ( Full Answer )
The president does not sign a bill within 10 days of receiving it,and congress is still in session .