What does the word law mean for you - Word и Excel - помощь в работе с программами

Iustitia («Lady Justice») is a symbolic personification of the coercive power of a tribunal: a sword representing state authority, scales representing an objective standard and a blindfold indicating that justice should be impartial.^[1]

Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior,^[2] with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.^[3]^[4]^[5] It has been variously described as a science^[6]^[7] and as the art of justice.^[8]^[9]^[10] State-enforced laws can be made by a group legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes; by the executive through decrees and regulations; or established by judges through precedent, usually in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals may create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that adopt alternative ways of resolving disputes to standard court litigation. The creation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and also serves as a mediator of relations between people.

Legal systems vary between jurisdictions, with their differences analysed in comparative law. In civil law jurisdictions, a legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates the law. In common law systems, judges may make binding case law through precedent,^[11] although on occasion this may be overturned by a higher court or the legislature.^[12] Historically, religious law has influenced secular matters ^[13] and is, as of the 21st century, still in use in some religious communities.^[14]^[15] Sharia law based on Islamic principles is used as the primary legal system in several countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.^[16]^[17]

The scope of law can be divided into two domains. Public law concerns government and society, including constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law. Private law deals with legal disputes between individuals and/or organisations in areas such as contracts, property, torts/delicts and commercial law.^[18] This distinction is stronger in civil law countries, particularly those with a separate system of administrative courts;^[19]^[20] by contrast, the public-private law divide is less pronounced in common law jurisdictions.^[21]^[22]

Law provides a source of scholarly inquiry into legal history,^[23] philosophy,^[24] economic analysis^[25] and sociology.^[26] Law also raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, and justice.^[27]^[28]

Philosophy of law

But what, after all, is a law? […] When I say that the object of laws is always general, I mean that law considers subjects en masse and actions in the abstract, and never a particular person or action. […] On this view, we at once see that it can no longer be asked whose business it is to make laws, since they are acts of the general will; nor whether the prince is above the law, since he is a member of the State; nor whether the law can be unjust, since no one is unjust to himself; nor how we can be both free and subject to the laws, since they are but registers of our wills.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, II, 6.^[29]

The philosophy of law is commonly known as jurisprudence. Normative jurisprudence asks «what should law be?», while analytic jurisprudence asks «what is law?»

Analytical jurisprudence

There have been several attempts to produce «a universally acceptable definition of law». In 1972, Baron Hampstead suggested that no such definition could be produced.^[30] McCoubrey and White said that the question «what is law?» has no simple answer.^[31] Glanville Williams said that the meaning of the word «law» depends on the context in which that word is used. He said that, for example, «early customary law» and «municipal law» were contexts where the word «law» had two different and irreconcilable meanings.^[32] Thurman Arnold said that it is obvious that it is impossible to define the word «law» and that it is also equally obvious that the struggle to define that word should not ever be abandoned.^[33] It is possible to take the view that there is no need to define the word «law» (e.g. «let’s forget about generalities and get down to cases»).^[34]

One definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.^[2] In The Concept of Law, H. L. A. Hart argued that law is a «system of rules»;^[35] John Austin said law was «the command of a sovereign, backed by the threat of a sanction»;^[36] Ronald Dworkin describes law as an «interpretive concept» to achieve justice in his text titled Law’s Empire;^[37] and Joseph Raz argues law is an «authority» to mediate people’s interests.^[38] Oliver Wendell Holmes defined law as «the prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious.»^[39] In his Treatise on Law, Thomas Aquinas argues that law is a rational ordering of things, which concern the common good, that is promulgated by whoever is charged with the care of the community.^[40] This definition has both positivist and naturalist elements.^[41]

Connection to morality and justice

Definitions of law often raise the question of the extent to which law incorporates morality.^[42] John Austin’s utilitarian answer was that law is «commands, backed by threat of sanctions, from a sovereign, to whom people have a habit of obedience».^[36] Natural lawyers, on the other hand, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argue that law reflects essentially moral and unchangeable laws of nature. The concept of «natural law» emerged in ancient Greek philosophy concurrently and in connection with the notion of justice, and re-entered the mainstream of Western culture through the writings of Thomas Aquinas, notably his Treatise on Law.

Hugo Grotius, the founder of a purely rationalistic system of natural law, argued that law arises from both a social impulse—as Aristotle had indicated—and reason.^[43] Immanuel Kant believed a moral imperative requires laws «be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature».^[44] Jeremy Bentham and his student Austin, following David Hume, believed that this conflated the «is» and what «ought to be» problem. Bentham and Austin argued for law’s positivism; that real law is entirely separate from «morality».^[45] Kant was also criticised by Friedrich Nietzsche, who rejected the principle of equality, and believed that law emanates from the will to power, and cannot be labeled as «moral» or «immoral».^[46]^[47]^[48]

In 1934, the Austrian philosopher Hans Kelsen continued the positivist tradition in his book the Pure Theory of Law.^[49] Kelsen believed that although law is separate from morality, it is endowed with «normativity», meaning we ought to obey it. While laws are positive «is» statements (e.g. the fine for reversing on a highway is €500); law tells us what we «should» do. Thus, each legal system can be hypothesised to have a basic norm (Grundnorm) instructing us to obey. Kelsen’s major opponent, Carl Schmitt, rejected both positivism and the idea of the rule of law because he did not accept the primacy of abstract normative principles over concrete political positions and decisions.^[50] Therefore, Schmitt advocated a jurisprudence of the exception (state of emergency), which denied that legal norms could encompass all of the political experience.^[51]

Bentham’s utilitarian theories remained dominant in law until the 20th century.

Later in the 20th century, H. L. A. Hart attacked Austin for his simplifications and Kelsen for his fictions in The Concept of Law.^[52] Hart argued law is a system of rules, divided into primary (rules of conduct) and secondary ones (rules addressed to officials to administer primary rules). Secondary rules are further divided into rules of adjudication (to resolve legal disputes), rules of change (allowing laws to be varied) and the rule of recognition (allowing laws to be identified as valid). Two of Hart’s students continued the debate: In his book Law’s Empire, Ronald Dworkin attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat law as a moral issue. Dworkin argues that law is an «interpretive concept»^[37] that requires judges to find the best fitting and most just solution to a legal dispute, given their^[who?] constitutional traditions. Joseph Raz, on the other hand, defended the positivist outlook and criticised Hart’s «soft social thesis» approach in The Authority of Law.^[38] Raz argues that law is authority, identifiable purely through social sources and without reference to moral reasoning. In his view, any categorisation of rules beyond their role as authoritative instruments in mediation are best left to sociology, rather than jurisprudence.^[53]

History

The history of law links closely to the development of civilization. Ancient Egyptian law, dating as far back as 3000 BC, was based on the concept of Ma’at and characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality.^[54]^[55]^[56] By the 22nd century BC, the ancient Sumerian ruler Ur-Nammu had formulated the first law code, which consisted of casuistic statements («if … then …»). Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as stelae, for the entire public to see; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. The most intact copy of these stelae was discovered in the 19th century by British Assyriologists, and has since been fully transliterated and translated into various languages, including English, Italian, German, and French.^[57]

The Old Testament dates back to 1280 BC and takes the form of moral imperatives as recommendations for a good society. The small Greek city-state, ancient Athens, from about the 8th century BC was the first society to be based on broad inclusion of its citizenry, excluding women and enslaved people. However, Athens had no legal science or single word for «law»,^[58] relying instead on the three-way distinction between divine law (thémis), human decree (nomos) and custom (díkē).^[59] Yet Ancient Greek law contained major constitutional innovations in the development of democracy.^[60]

Roman law was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, but its detailed rules were developed by professional jurists and were highly sophisticated.^[61]^[62] Over the centuries between the rise and decline of the Roman Empire, law was adapted to cope with the changing social situations and underwent major codification under Theodosius II and Justinian I.^[63] Although codes were replaced by custom and case law during the Early Middle Ages, Roman law was rediscovered around the 11th century when medieval legal scholars began to research Roman codes and adapt their concepts to the canon law, giving birth to the jus commune. Latin legal maxims (called brocards) were compiled for guidance. In medieval England, royal courts developed a body of precedent which later became the common law. A Europe-wide Law Merchant was formed so that merchants could trade with common standards of practice rather than with the many splintered facets of local laws. The Law Merchant, a precursor to modern commercial law, emphasised the freedom to contract and alienability of property.^[64] As nationalism grew in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Law Merchant was incorporated into countries’ local law under new civil codes. The Napoleonic and German Codes became the most influential. In contrast to English common law, which consists of enormous tomes of case law, codes in small books are easy to export and easy for judges to apply. However, today there are signs that civil and common law are converging.^[65] EU law is codified in treaties, but develops through de facto precedent laid down by the European Court of Justice.^[66]

The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution for a country, containing 444 articles, 12 schedules, numerous amendments and 117,369 words.

Ancient India and China represent distinct traditions of law, and have historically had independent schools of legal theory and practice. The Arthashastra, probably compiled around 100 AD (although it contains older material), and the Manusmriti (c. 100–300 AD) were foundational treatises in India, and comprise texts considered authoritative legal guidance.^[67] Manu’s central philosophy was tolerance and pluralism, and was cited across Southeast Asia.^[68] During the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, sharia was established by the Muslim sultanates and empires, most notably Mughal Empire’s Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, compiled by emperor Aurangzeb and various scholars of Islam.^[69]^[70] In India, the Hindu legal tradition, along with Islamic law, were both supplanted by common law when India became part of the British Empire.^[71] Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and Hong Kong also adopted the common law system. The eastern Asia legal tradition reflects a unique blend of secular and religious influences.^[72] Japan was the first country to begin modernising its legal system along western lines, by importing parts of the French, but mostly the German Civil Code.^[73] This partly reflected Germany’s status as a rising power in the late 19th century.

Similarly, traditional Chinese law gave way to westernisation towards the final years of the Qing Dynasty in the form of six private law codes based mainly on the Japanese model of German law.^[74] Today Taiwanese law retains the closest affinity to the codifications from that period, because of the split between Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists, who fled there, and Mao Zedong’s communists who won control of the mainland in 1949. The current legal infrastructure in the People’s Republic of China was heavily influenced by Soviet Socialist law, which essentially prioritises administrative law at the expense of private law rights.^[75] Due to rapid industrialisation, today China is undergoing a process of reform, at least in terms of economic, if not social and political, rights. A new contract code in 1999 represented a move away from administrative domination.^[76] Furthermore, after negotiations lasting fifteen years, in 2001 China joined the World Trade Organization.^[77]

Legal systems

Colour-coded map of the legal systems around the world, showing civil, common law, religious, customary and mixed legal systems.^[78] Common law systems are shaded pink, and civil law systems are shaded blue/turquoise.

In general, legal systems can be split between civil law and common law systems.^[79] Modern scholars argue that the significance of this distinction has progressively declined. The numerous legal transplants, typical of modern law, result in the sharing of many features traditionally considered typical of either common law or civil law.^[65]^[80] The third type of legal system is religious law, based on scriptures. The specific system that a country is ruled by is often determined by its history, connections with other countries, or its adherence to international standards. The sources that jurisdictions adopt as authoritatively binding are the defining features of any legal system.

Civil law

Civil law is the legal system used in most countries around the world today. In civil law the sources recognised as authoritative are, primarily, legislation—especially codifications in constitutions or statutes passed by government—and custom.^[81] Codifications date back millennia, with one early example being the Babylonian Codex Hammurabi. Modern civil law systems essentially derive from legal codes issued by Byzantine Emperor Justinian I in the 6th century, which were rediscovered by 11th century Italy.^[82] Roman law in the days of the Roman Republic and Empire was heavily procedural, and lacked a professional legal class.^[83] Instead a lay magistrate, iudex, was chosen to adjudicate. Decisions were not published in any systematic way, so any case law that developed was disguised and almost unrecognised.^[84] Each case was to be decided afresh from the laws of the State, which mirrors the (theoretical) unimportance of judges’ decisions for future cases in civil law systems today. From 529 to 534 AD the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I codified and consolidated Roman law up until that point, so that what remained was one-twentieth of the mass of legal texts from before.^[85] This became known as the Corpus Juris Civilis. As one legal historian wrote, «Justinian consciously looked back to the golden age of Roman law and aimed to restore it to the peak it had reached three centuries before.»^[86] The Justinian Code remained in force in the East until the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Western Europe, meanwhile, relied on a mix of the Theodosian Code and Germanic customary law until the Justinian Code was rediscovered in the 11th century, which scholars at the University of Bologna used to interpret their own laws.^[87] Civil law codifications based closely on Roman law, alongside some influences from religious laws such as canon law, continued to spread throughout Europe until the Enlightenment. Then, in the 19th century, both France, with the Code Civil, and Germany, with the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, modernised their legal codes. Both these codes heavily influenced not only the law systems of the countries in continental Europe, but also the Japanese and Korean legal traditions.^[88]^[89] Today, countries that have civil law systems range from Russia and Turkey to most of Central and Latin America.^[90]

Anarchist law

Anarchism has been practiced in society in much of the world. Mass anarchist communities, ranging from Syria to the United States, exist and vary from hundreds to millions.^{[citation needed]} Anarchism encompasses a broad range of social political philosophies with different tendencies and implementation.

Anarchist law primarily deals with how anarchism is implemented upon a society, the framework based on decentralized organizations and mutual aid, with representation through a form of direct democracy. Laws being based upon their need.^[91] A large portion of anarchist ideologies such as anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism primarily focuses on decentralized worker unions, cooperatives and syndicates as the main instrument of society.^[92]

Socialist law is the legal systems in communist states such as the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China.^[93] Academic opinion is divided on whether it is a separate system from civil law, given major deviations based on Marxist–Leninist ideology, such as subordinating the judiciary to the executive ruling party.^[93]^[94]^[95]

Common law and equity

King John of England signs Magna Carta.

In common law legal systems, decisions by courts are explicitly acknowledged as «law» on equal footing with legislative statutes and executive regulations. The «doctrine of precedent», or stare decisis (Latin for «to stand by decisions») means that decisions by higher courts bind lower courts to assure that similar cases reach similar results. In contrast, in civil law systems, legislative statutes are typically more detailed, and judicial decisions are shorter and less detailed, because the adjudicator is only writing to decide the single case, rather than to set out reasoning that will guide future courts.

Common law originated from England and has been inherited by almost every country once tied to the British Empire (except Malta, Scotland, the U.S. state of Louisiana, and the Canadian province of Quebec). In medieval England during the Norman conquest, the law varied shire-to-shire based on disparate tribal customs. The concept of a «common law» developed during the reign of Henry II during the late 12th century, when Henry appointed judges that had authority to create an institutionalised and unified system of law common to the country. The next major step in the evolution of the common law came when King John was forced by his barons to sign a document limiting his authority to pass laws. This «great charter» or Magna Carta of 1215 also required that the King’s entourage of judges hold their courts and judgments at «a certain place» rather than dispensing autocratic justice in unpredictable places about the country.^[96] A concentrated and elite group of judges acquired a dominant role in law-making under this system, and compared to its European counterparts the English judiciary became highly centralised. In 1297, for instance, while the highest court in France had fifty-one judges, the English Court of Common Pleas had five.^[97] This powerful and tight-knit judiciary gave rise to a systematised process of developing common law.^[98]

As time went on, many felt that the common law was overly systematised and inflexible, and increasing numbers of citizens petitioned the King to override the common law. On the King’s behalf, the Lord Chancellor started giving judgments to do what was equitable in a case. From the time of Sir Thomas More, the first lawyer to be appointed as Lord Chancellor, a systematic body of equity grew up alongside the rigid common law, and developed its own Court of Chancery. At first, equity was often criticised as erratic.^[99] Over time, courts of equity developed solid principles, especially under Lord Eldon.^[100] In the 19th century in England, and in 1937 in the U.S., the two systems were merged.

In developing the common law, academic writings have always played an important part, both to collect overarching principles from dispersed case law, and to argue for change. William Blackstone, from around 1760, was the first scholar to collect, describe, and teach the common law.^[101] But merely in describing, scholars who sought explanations and underlying structures slowly changed the way the law actually worked.^[102]

Religious law

Religious law is explicitly based on religious precepts. Examples include the Jewish Halakha and Islamic Sharia—both of which translate as the «path to follow». Christian canon law also survives in some church communities. Often the implication of religion for law is unalterability, because the word of God cannot be amended or legislated against by judges or governments.^[103] Nonetheless, most religious jurisdictions rely on further human elaboration to provide for thorough and detailed legal systems. For instance, the Quran has some law, and it acts as a source of further law through interpretation, Qiyas (reasoning by analogy), Ijma (consensus) and precedent.^[104] This is mainly contained in a body of law and jurisprudence known as Sharia and Fiqh respectively. Another example is the Torah or Old Testament, in the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses. This contains the basic code of Jewish law, which some Israeli communities choose to use. The Halakha is a code of Jewish law that summarizes some of the Talmud’s interpretations.

A number of countries are sharia jurisdictions. Israeli law allows litigants to use religious laws only if they choose. Canon law is only in use by members of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion.

Canon law

Canon law (from Greek kanon, a ‘straight measuring rod, ruler’) is a set of ordinances and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority (Church leadership), for the government of a Christian organisation or church and its members. It is the internal ecclesiastical law governing the Catholic Church (both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches), the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, and the individual national churches within the Anglican Communion.^[105] The way that such church law is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely among these three bodies of churches. In all three traditions, a canon was originally^[106] a rule adopted by a church council; these canons formed the foundation of canon law.

The Catholic Church has the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the western world,^[107]^[108] predating the evolution of modern European civil law and common law systems. The 1983 Code of Canon Law governs the Latin Church sui juris. The Eastern Catholic Churches, which developed different disciplines and practices, are governed by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.^[109] The canon law of the Catholic Church influenced the common law during the medieval period^[110] through its preservation of Roman law doctrine such as the presumption of innocence.^[111]

Sharia law

A trial in the Ottoman Empire, 1879, when religious law applied under the Mecelle

Until the 18th century, Sharia law was practiced throughout the Muslim world in a non-codified form, with the Ottoman Empire’s Mecelle code in the 19th century being a first attempt at codifying elements of Sharia law. Since the mid-1940s, efforts have been made, in country after country, to bring Sharia law more into line with modern conditions and conceptions.^[112]^[113] In modern times, the legal systems of many Muslim countries draw upon both civil and common law traditions as well as Islamic law and custom. The constitutions of certain Muslim states, such as Egypt and Afghanistan, recognise Islam as the religion of the state, obliging legislature to adhere to Sharia.^[114] Saudi Arabia recognises Quran as its constitution, and is governed on the basis of Islamic law.^[115] Iran has also witnessed a reiteration of Islamic law into its legal system after 1979.^[116] During the last few decades, one of the fundamental features of the movement of Islamic resurgence has been the call to restore the Sharia, which has generated a vast amount of literature and affected world politics.^[117]

Legal methods

There are distinguished methods of legal reasoning (applying the law) and methods of interpreting (construing) the law. The former are legal syllogism, which holds sway in civil law legal systems, analogy, which is present in common law legal systems, especially in the US, and argumentative theories that occur in both systems. The latter are different rules (directives) of legal interpretation such as directives of linguistic interpretation, teleological interpretation or systemic interpretation as well as more specific rules, for instance, golden rule or mischief rule. There are also many other arguments and cannons of interpretation which altogether make statutory interpretation possible.

Law professor and former United States Attorney General Edward H. Levi noted that the «basic pattern of legal reasoning is reasoning by example»—that is, reasoning by comparing outcomes in cases resolving similar legal questions.^[118] In a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding procedural efforts taken by a debt collection company to avoid errors, Justice Sotomayor cautioned that «legal reasoning is not a mechanical or strictly linear process».^[119]

Jurimetrics is the formal application of quantitative methods, especially probability and statistics, to legal questions. The use of statistical methods in court cases and law review articles has grown massively in importance in the last few decades.^[120]^[121]

Legal institutions

It is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou givest up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, XVII

The main institutions of law in industrialised countries are independent courts, representative parliaments, an accountable executive, the military and police, bureaucratic organisation, the legal profession and civil society itself. John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, and Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, advocated for a separation of powers between the political, legislature and executive bodies.^[122] Their principle was that no person should be able to usurp all powers of the state, in contrast to the absolutist theory of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan.^[123] Sun Yat-sen’s Five Power Constitution for the Republic of China took the separation of powers further by having two additional branches of government—a Control Yuan for auditing oversight and an Examination Yuan to manage the employment of public officials.^[124]

Max Weber and others reshaped thinking on the extension of state. Modern military, policing and bureaucratic power over ordinary citizens’ daily lives pose special problems for accountability that earlier writers such as Locke or Montesquieu could not have foreseen. The custom and practice of the legal profession is an important part of people’s access to justice, whilst civil society is a term used to refer to the social institutions, communities and partnerships that form law’s political basis.

Judiciary

A judiciary is a number of judges mediating disputes to determine outcome. Most countries have systems of appeal courts, with an apex court as the ultimate judicial authority. In the United States, this authority is the Supreme Court;^[125] in Australia, the High Court; in India, the Supreme Court of India;in the UK, the Supreme Court;^[126] in Germany, the Bundesverfassungsgericht; and in France, the Cour de Cassation.^[127]^[128] For most European countries the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg can overrule national law, when EU law is relevant. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg allows citizens of the Council of Europe member states to bring cases relating to human rights issues before it.^[129]

Some countries allow their highest judicial authority to overrule legislation they determine to be unconstitutional. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court nullified many state statutes that had established racially segregated schools, finding such statutes to be incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[130]

A judiciary is theoretically bound by the constitution, just as all other government bodies are. In most countries judges may only interpret the constitution and all other laws. But in common law countries, where matters are not constitutional, the judiciary may also create law under the doctrine of precedent. The UK, Finland and New Zealand assert the ideal of parliamentary sovereignty, whereby the unelected judiciary may not overturn law passed by a democratic legislature.^[131]

In communist states, such as China, the courts are often regarded as parts of the executive, or subservient to the legislature; governmental institutions and actors exert thus various forms of influence on the judiciary.^[132] In Muslim countries, courts often examine whether state laws adhere to the Sharia: the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt may invalidate such laws,^[133] and in Iran the Guardian Council ensures the compatibility of the legislation with the «criteria of Islam».^[133]^[134]

Legislature

Prominent examples of legislatures are the Houses of Parliament in London, the Congress in Washington, D.C., the Bundestag in Berlin, the Duma in Moscow, the Parlamento Italiano in Rome and the Assemblée nationale in Paris. By the principle of representative government people vote for politicians to carry out their wishes. Although countries like Israel, Greece, Sweden and China are unicameral, most countries are bicameral, meaning they have two separately appointed legislative houses.^[135]

In the ‘lower house’ politicians are elected to represent smaller constituencies. The ‘upper house’ is usually elected to represent states in a federal system (as in Australia, Germany or the United States) or different voting configuration in a unitary system (as in France). In the UK the upper house is appointed by the government as a house of review. One criticism of bicameral systems with two elected chambers is that the upper and lower houses may simply mirror one another. The traditional justification of bicameralism is that an upper chamber acts as a house of review. This can minimise arbitrariness and injustice in governmental action.^[135]

To pass legislation, a majority of the members of a legislature must vote for a bill (proposed law) in each house. Normally there will be several readings and amendments proposed by the different political factions. If a country has an entrenched constitution, a special majority for changes to the constitution may be required, making changes to the law more difficult. A government usually leads the process, which can be formed from Members of Parliament (e.g. the UK or Germany). However, in a presidential system, the government is usually formed by an executive and his or her appointed cabinet officials (e.g. the United States or Brazil).^[136]

Executive

The G20 meetings are composed of representatives of each country’s executive branch.

The executive in a legal system serves as the centre of political authority of the State. In a parliamentary system, as with Britain, Italy, Germany, India, and Japan, the executive is known as the cabinet, and composed of members of the legislature. The executive is led by the head of government, whose office holds power under the confidence of the legislature. Because popular elections appoint political parties to govern, the leader of a party can change in between elections.^[137]

The head of state is apart from the executive, and symbolically enacts laws and acts as representative of the nation. Examples include the President of Germany (appointed by members of federal and state legislatures), the Queen of the United Kingdom (an hereditary office), and the President of Austria (elected by popular vote). The other important model is the presidential system, found in the United States and in Brazil. In presidential systems, the executive acts as both head of state and head of government, and has power to appoint an unelected cabinet. Under a presidential system, the executive branch is separate from the legislature to which it is not accountable.^[137]^[138]

Although the role of the executive varies from country to country, usually it will propose the majority of legislation, and propose government agenda. In presidential systems, the executive often has the power to veto legislation. Most executives in both systems are responsible for foreign relations, the military and police, and the bureaucracy. Ministers or other officials head a country’s public offices, such as a foreign ministry or defence ministry. The election of a different executive is therefore capable of revolutionising an entire country’s approach to government.

Military and police

While military organisations have existed as long as government itself, the idea of a standing police force is a relatively modern concept. For example, Medieval England’s system of travelling criminal courts, or assizes, used show trials and public executions to instill communities with fear to maintain control.^[139] The first modern police were probably those in 17th-century Paris, in the court of Louis XIV,^[140] although the Paris Prefecture of Police claim they were the world’s first uniformed policemen.^[141]

Max Weber famously argued that the state is that which controls the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.^[142]^[143] The military and police carry out enforcement at the request of the government or the courts. The term failed state refers to states that cannot implement or enforce policies; their police and military no longer control security and order and society moves into anarchy, the absence of government.^[144]

Bureaucracy

The etymology of bureaucracy derives from the French word for office (bureau) and the Ancient Greek for word power (kratos).^[145] Like the military and police, a legal system’s government servants and bodies that make up its bureaucracy carry out the directives of the executive. One of the earliest references to the concept was made by Baron de Grimm, a German author who lived in France. In 1765, he wrote:

The real spirit of the laws in France is that bureaucracy of which the late Monsieur de Gournay used to complain so greatly; here the offices, clerks, secretaries, inspectors and intendants are not appointed to benefit the public interest, indeed the public interest appears to have been established so that offices might exist.^[146]

Cynicism over «officialdom» is still common, and the workings of public servants is typically contrasted to private enterprise motivated by profit.^[147] In fact private companies, especially large ones, also have bureaucracies.^[148] Negative perceptions of «red tape» aside, public services such as schooling, health care, policing or public transport are considered a crucial state function making public bureaucratic action the locus of government power.^[148]

Writing in the early 20th century, Max Weber believed that a definitive feature of a developed state had come to be its bureaucratic support.^[149] Weber wrote that the typical characteristics of modern bureaucracy are that officials define its mission, the scope of work is bound by rules, and management is composed of career experts who manage top down, communicating through writing and binding public servants’ discretion with rules.^[150]

Legal profession

In civil law systems such as those of Italy, France, Germany, Spain and Greece, there is a distinct category of notary, a legally trained public official, compensated by the parties to a transaction.^[151] This is a 16th-century painting of such a notary by Flemish painter Quentin Massys.

A corollary of the rule of law is the existence of a legal profession sufficiently autonomous to invoke the authority of the independent judiciary; the right to assistance of a barrister in a court proceeding emanates from this corollary—in England the function of barrister or advocate is distinguished from legal counselor.^[152] As the European Court of Human Rights has stated, the law should be adequately accessible to everyone and people should be able to foresee how the law affects them.^[153]

In order to maintain professionalism, the practice of law is typically overseen by either a government or independent regulating body such as a bar association, bar council or law society. Modern lawyers achieve distinct professional identity through specified legal procedures (e.g. successfully passing a qualifying examination), are required by law to have a special qualification (a legal education earning the student a Bachelor of Laws, a Bachelor of Civil Law, or a Juris Doctor degree. Higher academic degrees may also be pursued. Examples include a Master of Laws, a Master of Legal Studies, a Bar Professional Training Course or a Doctor of Laws.), and are constituted in office by legal forms of appointment (being admitted to the bar). There are few titles of respect to signify famous lawyers, such as Esquire, to indicate barristers of greater dignity,^[154]^[155] and Doctor of law, to indicate a person who obtained a PhD in Law.

Many Muslim countries have developed similar rules about legal education and the legal profession, but some still allow lawyers with training in traditional Islamic law to practice law before personal status law courts.^[156] In China and other developing countries there are not sufficient professionally trained people to staff the existing judicial systems, and, accordingly, formal standards are more relaxed.^[157]

Once accredited, a lawyer will often work in a law firm, in a chambers as a sole practitioner, in a government post or in a private corporation as an internal counsel. In addition a lawyer may become a legal researcher who provides on-demand legal research through a library, a commercial service or freelance work. Many people trained in law put their skills to use outside the legal field entirely.^[158]

Significant to the practice of law in the common law tradition is the legal research to determine the current state of the law. This usually entails exploring case-law reports, legal periodicals and legislation. Law practice also involves drafting documents such as court pleadings, persuasive briefs, contracts, or wills and trusts. Negotiation and dispute resolution skills (including ADR techniques) are also important to legal practice, depending on the field.^[158]

Civil society

The Classical republican concept of «civil society» dates back to Hobbes and Locke.^[159] Locke saw civil society as people who have «a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them.»^[160] German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel distinguished the «state» from «civil society» (bürgerliche Gesellschaft) in Elements of the Philosophy of Right.^[161]^[162]

Hegel believed that civil society and the state were polar opposites, within the scheme of his dialectic theory of history. The modern dipole state–civil society was reproduced in the theories of Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx.^[163]^[164] In post-modern theory, civil society is necessarily a source of law, by being the basis from which people form opinions and lobby for what they believe law should be. As Australian barrister and author Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote of international law, «one of its primary modern sources is found in the responses of ordinary men and women, and of the non-governmental organizations which many of them support, to the human rights abuses they see on the television screen in their living rooms.»^[165]

Freedom of speech, freedom of association and many other individual rights allow people to gather, discuss, criticise and hold to account their governments, from which the basis of a deliberative democracy is formed. The more people are involved with, concerned by and capable of changing how political power is exercised over their lives, the more acceptable and legitimate the law becomes to the people. The most familiar institutions of civil society include economic markets, profit-oriented firms, families, trade unions, hospitals, universities, schools, charities, debating clubs, non-governmental organisations, neighbourhoods, churches, and religious associations. There is no clear legal definition of the civil society, and of the institutions it includes. Most of the institutions and bodies who try to give a list of institutions (such as the European Economic and Social Committee) exclude the political parties.^[166]^[167]^[168]

Areas of law

All legal systems deal with the same basic issues, but jurisdictions categorise and identify their legal topics in different ways. A common distinction is that between «public law» (a term related closely to the state, and including constitutional, administrative and criminal law), and «private law» (which covers contract, tort and property).^[169] In civil law systems, contract and tort fall under a general law of obligations, while trusts law is dealt with under statutory regimes or international conventions. International, constitutional and administrative law, criminal law, contract, tort, property law and trusts are regarded as the «traditional core subjects»,^[170] although there are many further disciplines.

International law

Providing a constitution for public international law, the United Nations system was agreed during World War II.

International law can refer to three things: public international law, private international law or conflict of laws and the law of supranational organisations.

Public international law concerns relationships between sovereign nations. The sources for public international law development are custom, practice and treaties between sovereign nations, such as the Geneva Conventions. Public international law can be formed by international organisations, such as the United Nations (which was established after the failure of the League of Nations to prevent World War II),^[172] the International Labour Organisation, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), or the International Monetary Fund. Public international law has a special status as law because there is no international police force, and courts (e.g. the International Court of Justice as the primary UN judicial organ) lack the capacity to penalise disobedience. The prevailing manner of enforcing international law is still essentially «self help»; that is the reaction by states to alleged breaches of international obligations by other states.^[173]^[2]^[174] However, a few bodies, such as the WTO, have effective systems of binding arbitration and dispute resolution backed up by trade sanctions.^[175]
Conflict of laws, or private international law in civil law countries, concerns which jurisdiction a legal dispute between private parties should be heard in and which jurisdiction’s law should be applied. Today, businesses are increasingly capable of shifting capital and labour supply chains across borders, as well as trading with overseas businesses, making the question of which country has jurisdiction even more pressing. Increasing numbers of businesses opt for commercial arbitration under the New York Convention 1958.^[176]
European Union law is the first and so far the only example of a supranational law, i.e. an internationally accepted legal system, other than the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. Given the trend of increasing global economic integration, many regional agreements—especially the African Union—seek to follow a similar model.^[177]^[178] In the EU, sovereign nations have gathered their authority in a system of courts and the European Parliament. These institutions are allowed the ability to enforce legal norms both against or for member states and citizens in a manner which is not possible through public international law.^[179] As the European Court of Justice noted in its 1963 Van Gend en Loos decision, European Union law constitutes «a new legal order of international law» for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states.^[180]^[181]

Constitutional and administrative law

Constitutional and administrative law govern the affairs of the state. Constitutional law concerns both the relationships between the executive, legislature and judiciary and the human rights or civil liberties of individuals against the state. Most jurisdictions, like the United States and France, have a single codified constitution with a bill of rights. A few, like the United Kingdom, have no such document. A «constitution» is simply those laws which constitute the body politic, from statute, case law and convention. A case named Entick v Carrington^[182] illustrates a constitutional principle deriving from the common law. Entick’s house was searched and ransacked by Sheriff Carrington. When Entick complained in court, Sheriff Carrington argued that a warrant from a Government minister, the Earl of Halifax, was valid authority. However, there was no written statutory provision or court authority. The leading judge, Lord Camden, stated:

The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole … If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.^[183]

The fundamental constitutional principle, inspired by John Locke, holds that the individual can do anything except that which is forbidden by law, and the state may do nothing except that which is authorised by law.^[184]^[185] Administrative law is the chief method for people to hold state bodies to account. People can sue an agency, local council, public service, or government ministry for judicial review of actions or decisions, to ensure that they comply with the law, and that the government entity observed required procedure. The first specialist administrative court was the Conseil d’État set up in 1799, as Napoleon assumed power in France.^[186]

A subdiscipline of constitutional law is election law. It deals with rules governing elections. These rules enable the translation of the will of the people into functioning democracies. Election law addresses issues who is entitled to vote, voter registration, ballot access, campaign finance and party funding, redistricting, apportionment, electronic voting and voting machines, accessibility of elections, election systems and formulas, vote counting, election disputes, referendums, and issues such as electoral fraud and electoral silence.

Criminal law

Criminal law, also known as penal law, pertains to crimes and punishment.^[187] It thus regulates the definition of and penalties for offences found to have a sufficiently deleterious social impact but, in itself, makes no moral judgment on an offender nor imposes restrictions on society that physically prevent people from committing a crime in the first place.^[188] Investigating, apprehending, charging, and trying suspected offenders is regulated by the law of criminal procedure.^[189] The paradigm case of a crime lies in the proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that a person is guilty of two things. First, the accused must commit an act which is deemed by society to be criminal, or actus reus (guilty act).^[190] Second, the accused must have the requisite malicious intent to do a criminal act, or mens rea (guilty mind). However, for so called «strict liability» crimes, an actus reus is enough.^[191] Criminal systems of the civil law tradition distinguish between intention in the broad sense (dolus directus and dolus eventualis), and negligence. Negligence does not carry criminal responsibility unless a particular crime provides for its punishment.^[192]^[193]

Examples of crimes include murder, assault, fraud and theft. In exceptional circumstances defences can apply to specific acts, such as killing in self defence, or pleading insanity. Another example is in the 19th-century English case of R v Dudley and Stephens, which tested a defence of «necessity». The Mignonette, sailing from Southampton to Sydney, sank. Three crew members and Richard Parker, a 17-year-old cabin boy, were stranded on a raft. They were starving and the cabin boy was close to death. Driven to extreme hunger, the crew killed and ate the cabin boy. The crew survived and were rescued, but put on trial for murder. They argued it was necessary to kill the cabin boy to preserve their own lives. Lord Coleridge, expressing immense disapproval, ruled, «to preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it.» The men were sentenced to hang, but public opinion was overwhelmingly supportive of the crew’s right to preserve their own lives. In the end, the Crown commuted their sentences to six months in jail.^[194]

Criminal law offences are viewed as offences against not just individual victims, but the community as well.^[188] The state, usually with the help of police, takes the lead in prosecution, which is why in common law countries cases are cited as «The People v …» or «R (for Rex or Regina) v …». Also, lay juries are often used to determine the guilt of defendants on points of fact: juries cannot change legal rules. Some developed countries still condone capital punishment for criminal activity, but the normal punishment for a crime will be imprisonment, fines, state supervision (such as probation), or community service. Modern criminal law has been affected considerably by the social sciences, especially with respect to sentencing, legal research, legislation, and rehabilitation.^[195] On the international field, 111 countries are members of the International Criminal Court, which was established to try people for crimes against humanity.^[196]

Contract law

Contract law concerns enforceable promises, and can be summed up in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).^[197] In common law jurisdictions, three key elements to the creation of a contract are necessary: offer and acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company a medical firm advertised that its new wonder drug, the smokeball, would cure people’s flu, and if it did not, the buyers would get £100. Many people sued for their £100 when the drug did not work. Fearing bankruptcy, Carbolic argued the advert was not to be taken as a serious, legally binding offer. It was an invitation to treat, mere puffery, a gimmick. But the Court of Appeal held that to a reasonable man Carbolic had made a serious offer, accentuated by their reassuring statement, «£1000 is deposited». Equally, people had given good consideration for the offer by going to the «distinct inconvenience» of using a faulty product. «Read the advertisement how you will, and twist it about as you will», said Lord Justice Lindley, «here is a distinct promise expressed in language which is perfectly unmistakable».^[198]

Consideration indicates the fact that all parties to a contract have exchanged something of value. Some common law systems, including Australia, are moving away from the idea of consideration as a requirement. The idea of estoppel or culpa in contrahendo, can be used to create obligations during pre-contractual negotiations.^[199]

Civil law jurisdictions treat contracts differently in a number of respects, with a more interventionist role for the state in both the formation and enforcement of contracts.^[200] Compared to common law jurisdictions, civil law systems incorporate more mandatory terms into contracts, allow greater latitude for courts to interpret and revise contract terms and impose a stronger duty of good faith, but are also more likely to enforce penalty clauses and specific performance of contracts.^[200] They also do not require consideration for a contract to be binding.^[201] In France, an ordinary contract is said to form simply on the basis of a «meeting of the minds» or a «concurrence of wills». Germany has a special approach to contracts, which ties into property law. Their ‘abstraction principle’ (Abstraktionsprinzip) means that the personal obligation of contract forms separately from the title of property being conferred. When contracts are invalidated for some reason (e.g. a car buyer is so drunk that he lacks legal capacity to contract)^[202] the contractual obligation to pay can be invalidated separately from the proprietary title of the car. Unjust enrichment law, rather than contract law, is then used to restore title to the rightful owner.^[203]

Torts and delicts

The «McLibel case» was the longest-running case in UK history. It involved publishing a pamphlet that criticised McDonald’s restaurants.

Certain civil wrongs are grouped together as torts under common law systems and delicts under civil law systems.^[204] To have acted tortiously, one must have breached a duty to another person, or infringed some pre-existing legal right. A simple example might be unintentionally hitting someone with a cricket ball.^[205] Under the law of negligence, the most common form of tort, the injured party could potentially claim compensation for their injuries from the party responsible. The principles of negligence are illustrated by Donoghue v Stevenson.^[206] A friend of Donoghue ordered an opaque bottle of ginger beer (intended for the consumption of Donoghue) in a café in Paisley. Having consumed half of it, Donoghue poured the remainder into a tumbler. The decomposing remains of a snail floated out. She claimed to have suffered from shock, fell ill with gastroenteritis and sued the manufacturer for carelessly allowing the drink to be contaminated. The House of Lords decided that the manufacturer was liable for Mrs Donoghue’s illness. Lord Atkin took a distinctly moral approach and said:

The liability for negligence […] is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. […] The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.^[207]

This became the basis for the four principles of negligence, namely that (1) Stevenson owed Donoghue a duty of care to provide safe drinks; (2) he breached his duty of care; (3) the harm would not have occurred but for his breach; and (4) his act was the proximate cause of her harm.^[206] Another example of tort might be a neighbour making excessively loud noises with machinery on his property.^[208] Under a nuisance claim the noise could be stopped. Torts can also involve intentional acts such as assault, battery or trespass. A better known tort is defamation, which occurs, for example, when a newspaper makes unsupportable allegations that damage a politician’s reputation.^[209] More infamous are economic torts, which form the basis of labour law in some countries by making trade unions liable for strikes,^[210] when statute does not provide immunity.^[211]

Property law

A painting of the South Sea Bubble, one of the world’s first ever speculations and crashes, led to strict regulation on share trading.^[212]

Property law governs ownership and possession. Real property, sometimes called ‘real estate’, refers to ownership of land and things attached to it.^[213] Personal property, refers to everything else; movable objects, such as computers, cars, jewelry or intangible rights, such as stocks and shares. A right in rem is a right to a specific piece of property, contrasting to a right in personam which allows compensation for a loss, but not a particular thing back. Land law forms the basis for most kinds of property law, and is the most complex. It concerns mortgages, rental agreements, licences, covenants, easements and the statutory systems for land registration. Regulations on the use of personal property fall under intellectual property, company law, trusts and commercial law. An example of a basic case of most property law is Armory v Delamirie [1722].^[214] A chimney sweep’s boy found a jewel encrusted with precious stones. He took it to a goldsmith to have it valued. The goldsmith’s apprentice looked at it, sneakily removed the stones, told the boy it was worth three halfpence and that he would buy it. The boy said he would prefer the jewel back, so the apprentice gave it to him, but without the stones. The boy sued the goldsmith for his apprentice’s attempt to cheat him. Lord Chief Justice Pratt ruled that even though the boy could not be said to own the jewel, he should be considered the rightful keeper («finders keepers») until the original owner is found. In fact the apprentice and the boy both had a right of possession in the jewel (a technical concept, meaning evidence that something could belong to someone), but the boy’s possessory interest was considered better, because it could be shown to be first in time. Possession may be nine-tenths of the law, but not all.

This case is used to support the view of property in common law jurisdictions, that the person who can show the best claim to a piece of property, against any contesting party, is the owner.^[215] By contrast, the classic civil law approach to property, propounded by Friedrich Carl von Savigny, is that it is a right good against the world. Obligations, like contracts and torts, are conceptualised as rights good between individuals.^[216] The idea of property raises many further philosophical and political issues. Locke argued that our «lives, liberties and estates» are our property because we own our bodies and mix our labour with our surroundings.^[217]

Equity and trusts

Equity is a body of rules that developed in England separately from the «common law». The common law was administered by judges and barristers. The Lord Chancellor on the other hand, as the King’s keeper of conscience, could overrule the judge-made law if he thought it equitable to do so.^[218] This meant equity came to operate more through principles than rigid rules. Whereas neither the common law nor civil law systems allow people to split the ownership from the control of one piece of property, equity allows this through an arrangement known as a trust. Trustees control property whereas the beneficial, or equitable, ownership of trust property is held by people known as beneficiaries. Trustees owe duties to their beneficiaries to take good care of the entrusted property.^[219] In the early case of Keech v Sandford [1722],^[220] a child had inherited the lease on a market in Romford, London. Mr Sandford was entrusted to look after this property until the child matured. But before then, the lease expired. The landlord had (apparently) told Mr Sandford that he did not want the child to have the renewed lease. Yet the landlord was happy (apparently) to give Mr Sandford the opportunity of the lease instead. Mr Sandford took it. When the child (now Mr Keech) grew up, he sued Mr Sandford for the profit that he had been making by getting the market’s lease. Mr Sandford was meant to be trusted, but he put himself in a position of conflict of interest. The Lord Chancellor, Lord King, agreed and ordered Mr Sandford should disgorge his profits. He wrote: «I very well see, if a trustee, on the refusal to renew, might have a lease to himself few trust-estates would be renewed. […] This may seem very hard, that the trustee is the only person of all mankind who might not have the lease; but it is very proper that the rule should be strictly pursued and not at all relaxed.»

Lord King LC was worried that trustees might exploit opportunities to use trust property for themselves instead of looking after it. Business speculators using trusts had just recently caused a stock market crash. Strict duties for trustees made their way into company law and were applied to directors and chief executive officers. Another example of a trustee’s duty might be to invest property wisely or sell it.^[221] This is especially the case for pension funds, the most important form of trust, where investors are trustees for people’s savings until retirement. But trusts can also be set up for charitable purposes, famous examples being the British Museum or the Rockefeller Foundation.

Further disciplines

Law and society

A trade union protest by UNISON while on strike

Labour law is the study of a tripartite industrial relationship between worker, employer and trade union. This involves collective bargaining regulation, and the right to strike. Individual employment law refers to workplace rights, such as job security, health and safety or a minimum wage.
Human rights, civil rights and human rights law. These are laid down in codes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights (which founded the European Court of Human Rights) and the U.S. Bill of Rights. The Treaty of Lisbon makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union legally binding in all member states except Poland and the United Kingdom.^[222]
Civil procedure and criminal procedure concern the rules that courts must follow as a trial and appeals proceed. Both concern a citizen’s right to a fair trial or hearing.
Evidence law involves which materials are admissible in courts for a case to be built.
Immigration law and nationality law concern the rights of foreigners to live and work in a nation-state that is not their own and to acquire or lose citizenship. Both also involve the right of asylum and the problem of stateless individuals.
Family law covers marriage and divorce proceedings, the rights of children and rights to property and money in the event of separation.
Transactional law is the practice of law concerning business and money.

Law and commerce

Company law sprang from the law of trusts, on the principle of separating ownership of property and control.^[223] The law of the modern company began with the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856, passed in the United Kingdom, which provided investors with a simple registration procedure to gain limited liability under the separate legal personality of the corporation.
Commercial law covers complex contract and property law. The law of agency, insurance law, bills of exchange, insolvency and bankruptcy law and sales law trace back to the medieval Lex Mercatoria. The UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the US Uniform Commercial Code are examples of codified common law commercial principles.
Admiralty law and the sea law lay a basic framework for free trade and commerce across the world’s oceans and seas, where outside of a country’s zone of control. Shipping companies operate through ordinary principles of commercial law, generalised for a global market. Admiralty law also encompasses specialised issues such as salvage, maritime liens, and injuries to passengers.
Intellectual property law aims at safeguarding creators and other producers of intellectual goods and services. These are legal rights (copyrights, trademarks, patents, and related rights) which result from intellectual activity in the industrial, literary and artistic fields.^[224]
Space law is a relatively new field dealing with aspects of international law regarding human activities in Earth orbit and outer space. While at first addressing space relations of countries via treaties, increasingly it is addressing areas such as space commercialisation, property, liability, and other issues.

Law and regulation

Tax law involves regulations that concern value added tax, corporate tax, and income tax.
Banking law and financial regulation set minimum standards on the amounts of capital banks must hold, and rules about best practice for investment. This is to insure against the risk of economic crises, such as the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
Regulation deals with the provision of public services and utilities. Water law is one example. Especially since privatisation became popular and took management of services away from public law, private companies doing the jobs previously controlled by government have been bound by varying degrees of social responsibility. Energy, gas, telecomms and water are regulated industries in most OECD countries.
Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, is an evolving field that traces as far back as Roman decrees against price fixing and the English restraint of trade doctrine. Modern competition law derives from the U.S. anti-cartel and anti-monopoly statutes (the Sherman Act and Clayton Act) of the turn of the 20th century. It is used to control businesses who attempt to use their economic influence to distort market prices at the expense of consumer welfare.
Consumer law could include anything from regulations on unfair contractual terms and clauses to directives on airline baggage insurance.
Environmental law is increasingly important, especially in light of the Kyoto Protocol and the potential danger of climate change. Environmental protection also serves to penalise polluters within domestic legal systems.
Aviation law deals with all regulations and technical standards applicable to the safe operation of aircraft, and is an essential part both of pilots’ training and pilot’s operations. It is framed by national civil aviation acts (or laws), themselves mostly aligned with the recommendations or mandatory standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation or ICAO.

Intersection with other fields

Economics

In the 18th century, Adam Smith presented a philosophical foundation for explaining the relationship between law and economics.^[225] The discipline arose partly out of a critique of trade unions and U.S. antitrust law. The most influential proponents, such as Richard Posner and Oliver Williamson and the so-called Chicago School of economists and lawyers including Milton Friedman and Gary Becker, are generally advocates of deregulation and privatisation, and are hostile to state regulation or what they see as restrictions on the operation of free markets.^[226]

The most prominent economic analyst of law is 1991 Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase, whose first major article, The Nature of the Firm (1937), argued that the reason for the existence of firms (companies, partnerships, etc.) is the existence of transaction costs.^[228] Rational individuals trade through bilateral contracts on open markets until the costs of transactions mean that using corporations to produce things is more cost-effective. His second major article, The Problem of Social Cost (1960), argued that if we lived in a world without transaction costs, people would bargain with one another to create the same allocation of resources, regardless of the way a court might rule in property disputes.^[229] Coase used the example of a nuisance case named Sturges v Bridgman, where a noisy sweetmaker and a quiet doctor were neighbours and went to court to see who should have to move.^[208] Coase said that regardless of whether the judge ruled that the sweetmaker had to stop using his machinery, or that the doctor had to put up with it, they could strike a mutually beneficial bargain about who moves that reaches the same outcome of resource distribution. Only the existence of transaction costs may prevent this.^[230] So the law ought to pre-empt what would happen, and be guided by the most efficient solution. The idea is that law and regulation are not as important or effective at helping people as lawyers and government planners believe.^[231] Coase and others like him wanted a change of approach, to put the burden of proof for positive effects on a government that was intervening in the market, by analysing the costs of action.^[232]

Sociology

The sociology of law examines the interaction of law with society and overlaps with jurisprudence, philosophy of law, social theory and more specialised subjects such as criminology.^[233] It is a transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary study focused on the theorisation and empirical study of legal practices and experiences as social phenomena. The institutions of social construction, social norms, dispute processing and legal culture are key areas for inquiry in this knowledge field. In the United States, the field is usually called law and society studies; in Europe, it is more often referred to as socio-legal studies. At first, jurists and legal philosophers were suspicious of sociology of law. Kelsen attacked one of its founders, Eugen Ehrlich, who sought to make clear the differences and connections between positive law, which lawyers learn and apply, and other forms of ‘law’ or social norms that regulate everyday life, generally preventing conflicts from reaching lawyers and courts.^[234] Contemporary research in the sociology of law is concerned with the way that law develops outside discrete state jurisdictions, being produced through social interaction in social arenas, and acquiring a diversity of sources of authority in national and transnational communal networks.^[235]

Max Weber in 1917. Weber began his career as a lawyer, and is regarded as one of the founders of sociology and sociology of law.

Around 1900, Max Weber defined his «scientific» approach to law, identifying the «legal rational form» as a type of domination, not attributable to personal authority but to the authority of abstract norms.^[236] Formal legal rationality was his term for the key characteristic of the kind of coherent and calculable law that was a precondition for modern political developments and the modern bureaucratic state. Weber saw this law as having developed in parallel with the growth of capitalism.^[233] Another leading sociologist, Émile Durkheim, wrote in his classic work The Division of Labour in Society that as society becomes more complex, the body of civil law concerned primarily with restitution and compensation grows at the expense of criminal laws and penal sanctions.^[237] Other notable early legal sociologists included Hugo Sinzheimer, Theodor Geiger, Georges Gurvitch and Leon Petrażycki in Europe, and William Graham Sumner in the U.S.^[238]^[239]

References

Citations

^ Luban, Law’s Blindfold, 23.
^ ^a ^b ^c Robertson, Crimes against humanity, 90.
^ Willis, Hugh Evander (January 1926). «A Definition of Law». Virginia Law Review. 12 (3): 203–214. doi:10.2307/1065717. JSTOR 1065717. Archived from the original on 12 February 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
^ Gibbs, Jack P. (1968). «Definitions of Law and Empirical Questions». Law & Society Review. 2 (3): 429–446. doi:10.2307/3052897. ISSN 0023-9216. JSTOR 3052897.
^ Akers, Ronald L. (Fall 1965). «Toward a Comparative Definition of Law». Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 56 (3): 301–306. doi:10.2307/1141239. JSTOR 1141239. Archived from the original on 19 July 2018. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
^ See for example Spooner, Lysander (1882). Natural Law; or The Science of Justice: A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing that All Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, a Usurpation, and a Crime. Part First. A. Williams & Co. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ Núñez Vaquero, Álvaro (10 June 2013). «Five Models of Legal Science». Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law / Revija za ustavno teorijo in filozofijo prava (19): 53–81. doi:10.4000/revus.2449. ISSN 1581-7652. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ Cohen, Morris L. (1992). Law : the art of justice. Beaux Arts Editions. ISBN 9780883633120.
^ Rubin, Basha (13 January 2015). «Is Law an Art or a Science?: A Bit of Both». Forbes. Archived from the original on 3 November 2018.
^ Berger, Adolf (1953). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. American Philosophical Society. p. 525. ISBN 978-0-87169-432-4. Roman ars boni et aequi.
^ Mason AC, KBE, The Hon. Sir Anthony (1996). «The Judge as Law-maker» (PDF). James Cook University Mayo Lecture. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ Devins, Neal (2008). «Congressional Responses to Judicial Decisions». Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. Gale MacMillan. pp. 400–403. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ Berman, Harold J. (1983). «Religious Foundations of Law in the West: An Historical Perspective». Journal of Law and Religion. Cambridge University Press. 1 (1): 3–43. doi:10.2307/1051071. JSTOR 1051071. S2CID 146933872.
^ Fox, Jonathan; Sandler, Shmuel (1 April 2005). «Separation of Religion and State in the Twenty-First Century: Comparing the Middle East and Western Democracies». Comparative Politics. 37 (3): 317. doi:10.2307/20072892. JSTOR 20072892.
^ Cox, Noel (2001). «Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church of the Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia». Deakin Law Review. 6 (2): 262. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ Otto, Jan Michiel, ed. (2010). Sharia incorporated: a comparative overview of the legal systems of twelve Muslim countries in past and present. Leiden University Press. ISBN 9789087280574.
^ Raisch, Marylin Johnson. «Religious Legal Systems in Comparative Law: A Guide to Introductory Research — GlobaLex». Hauser Global Law School Program. New York University School of Law. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ Horwitz, Morton J. (1 June 1982). «The History of the Public/Private Distinction». University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 130 (6): 1423–1428. doi:10.2307/3311976. JSTOR 3311976. S2CID 51854776. Retrieved 3 January 2020.^{[dead link]}
^ Merryman, John Henry (1968). «The Public Law-Private Law Distinction in European and American Law». Journal of Public Law. 17: 3. Archived from the original on 12 February 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
^ Saiman, Chaim N. (6 July 2008). «Public Law, Private Law, and Legal Science». American Journal of Comparative Law. Social Science Research Network. 56 (961): 691–702. doi:10.5131/ajcl.2007.0023. Archived from the original on 28 April 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
^ Harlow, Carol (1 May 1980). ««Public» and «private» law: definition without distinction». The Modern Law Review. 43 (3): 241–265. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1980.tb01592.x. ISSN 1468-2230.
^ Samuel, Geoffrey (1 September 1983). «Public And Private Law: A Private Lawyer’s Response». The Modern Law Review. 46 (5): 558–583. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1983.tb02534.x. ISSN 1468-2230.
^ Gordley, James (16 November 2006). Reimann, Mathias; Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.). «Comparative Law and Legal History». The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law: 752–774. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199296064.013.0024. ISBN 9780199296064. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ Bor, Fredric L. (1974). «The nexus between philosophy and law». Journal of Legal Education. 26 (4): 539–543. ISSN 0022-2208. JSTOR 42896964.
^ Rubin, Paul H. «Law and Economics». The Library of Economics and Liberty. Liberty Fund, Inc. Archived from the original on 2 July 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ Banakar, Reza (2003). Merging law and sociology : beyond the dichotomies in socio-legal research. Berlin/Wisconsin: Galda and Wilch Publishing. ISBN 1-931255-13-X.
^ Pound, Roscoe (1914). «The End of Law as Developed in Legal Rules and Doctrines». Harvard Law Review. 27 (3): 195–234. doi:10.2307/1325958. ISSN 0017-811X. JSTOR 1325958.
^ Sarat, Austin; Kearns, Thomas, eds. (1996). Justice and Injustice in Law and Legal Theory. University of Michigan Press. pp. 18–19. doi:10.3998/mpub.10283. ISBN 9780472096251. JSTOR 10.3998/mpub.10283.
^ Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book II: Chapter 6 (Law) Archived 22 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine
^ Dennis Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Hampstead. Introduction to Jurisprudence. Third Edition. Stevens & Sons. London. 1972. Second Impression. 1975. p. 39.
^ Mc Coubrey, Hilaire and White, Nigel D. Textbook on Jurisprudence. Second Edition. Blackstone Press Limited. 1996. ISBN 1-85431-582-X. p. 2.
^ Williams, Glanville. International Law and the Controversy Concerning the Meaning of the Word «Law». Revised version published in Laslett (Editor), Philosophy, Politics and Society (1956) p. 134 et seq. The original was published in (1945) 22 BYBIL 146.
^ Arnold, Thurman. The Symbols of Government. 1935. p. 36.
^ Baron Lloyd of Hampstead. Introduction to Jurisprudence. Third Edition. Stevens & Sons. London. 1972. Second Impression. 1975.
^ Campbell, The Contribution of Legal Studies, 184
^ ^a ^b Bix, John Austin Archived 26 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine
^ ^a ^b Dworkin, Law’s Empire, 410
^ ^a ^b Raz, The Authority of Law, 3–36
^ Holmes, Oliver Wendell. «The Path of Law» (1897) 10 Harvard Law Review 457 at 461.
^ Aquinas, St Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1a2ae, 90.4. Translated by J G Dawson. Ed d’Entreves. (Basil Blackwell). Latin: «nihil est aliud qau edam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, ab eo qi curam communitatis habet, promulgata».
^ McCoubrey, Hilaire and White, Nigel D. Textbook on Jurisprudence. Second Edition. Blackstone Press Limited. 1996. ISBN 1-85431-582-X. p. 73.
^ Taylor, T. W. (January 1896). «The Conception of Morality in Jurisprudence». The Philosophical Review. 5 (1): 36–50. doi:10.2307/2176104. JSTOR 2176104.
^ Fritz Berolzheimer, The World’s Legal Philosophies, 115–116
^ Kant, Immanuel, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 42 (par. 434)
^ Green, Legal Positivism Archived 9 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine
^ Nietzsche, Zur Genealogie der Moral, Second Essay, 11
^ Kazantzakis, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Philosophy of Law, 97–98
^ Linarelli, Nietzsche in Law’s Cathedral, 23–26
^ Marmor, The Pure Theory of Law Archived 9 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine
^ Bielefeldt, Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism, 25–26
^ Finn, Constitutions in Crisis, 170–171
^ Bayles, Hart’s Legal Philosophy, 21
^ Raz, The Authority of Law, 37 etc.
^ Théodoridés. «law». Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt.
^ VerSteeg, Law in ancient Egypt
^ Lippert, Sandra (11 February 2016). «Egyptian Law, Saite to Roman Periods». Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.013.48. ISBN 978-0-19-993539-0. Archived from the original on 3 January 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
^ Richardson, Hammurabi’s Laws, 11
^ Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Theory, 5–6
^ J.P. Mallory, «Law», in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, 346
^ Ober, The Nature of Athenian Democracy, 121
^ Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Theory, 39
^ Stein, Roman Law in European History, 1
^ As a legal system, Roman law has affected the development of law worldwide. It also forms the basis for the law codes of most countries of continental Europe and has played an important role in the creation of the idea of a common European culture (Stein, Roman Law in European History, 2, 104–107).
^ Clarke, M. A.; Hooley, R. J. A.; Munday, R. J. C.; Sealy, L. S.; Tettenborn, A. M.; Turner, P. G. (2017). Commercial Law. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 9780199692088. Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 10 December 2020.
^ ^a ^b Mattei, Comparative Law and Economics, 71
^ McAuliffe, Karen (21 February 2013). Precedent at the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Linguistic Aspect. Law and Language: Current Legal Issues. Vol. 15. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199673667. Archived from the original on 1 January 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^ For discussion of the composition and dating of these sources, see Olivelle, Manu’s Code of Law, 18–25.
^ Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 276
^ Chapra, Muhammad Umer (2014). Morality and Justice in Islamic Economics and Finance. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 62–63. ISBN 9781783475728.
^ Jackson, Roy (2010). Mawlana Mawdudi and Political Islam: Authority and the Islamic State. Routledge. ISBN 9781136950360.
^ Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 273
^ Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 287
^ Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 304
^ Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 305
^ Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 307
^ Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 309
^ Farah, Five Years of China WTO Membership, 263–304
^ Compiled based on the «Alphabetical Index of the 192 United Nations Member States and Corresponding Legal Systems». JuriGlobe. University of Ottawa. Archived from the original on 22 July 2016. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^ Pejovic, Caslav (2001). «Civil Law and Common Law: Two Different Paths Leading to the Same Goal». Victoria University of Wellington Law Review. 32 (3): 817. doi:10.26686/vuwlr.v32i3.5873. Archived from the original on 8 September 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^ «Introduction to Civil Law Legal Systems» (PDF). Federal Judicial Center. INPROL. May 2009. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 June 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^ Civil law jurisdictions recognise custom as «the other source of law»; hence, scholars tend to divide the civil law into the broad categories of «written law» (ius scriptum) or legislation, and «unwritten law» (ius non-scriptum) or custom. Yet they tend to dismiss custom as being of slight importance compared to legislation (Georgiadis, General Principles of Civil Law, 19; Washofsky, Taking Precedent Seriously, 7).
^ «The Economist explains: What is the difference between common and civil law?». The Economist. 17 July 2013. Archived from the original on 22 December 2019. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^ Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Law, 18
^ Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Law, 21
^ Stein, Roman Law in European History, 32
^ Stein, Roman Law in European History, 35
^ Stein, Roman Law in European History, 43
^ Hatzis, The Short-Lived Influence of the Napoleonic Civil Code in Greece, 253–263
^ Demirgüç-Kunt -Levine, Financial Structures and Economic Growth, 204
^ The World Factbook – Field Listing – Legal system Archived 18 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine, CIA
^ Tamblyn, Nathan (April 2019). «The Common Ground of Law and Anarchism». Liverpool Law Review. 40 (1): 65–78. doi:10.1007/s10991-019-09223-1. ISSN 1572-8625. S2CID 155131683.
^ Rocker, Rudolf (1938). «Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. An Introduction to a Subject Which the Spanish War Has Brought into Overwhelming Prominence» Archived 30 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 17 October 2020 – via The Anarchist Mirror!
^ ^a ^b Markovits, I. (December 2007). «The Death of Socialist Law?». Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 3: 233–253. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112849.
^ Quigley, J. (1989). «Socialist Law and the Civil Law Tradition». The American Journal of Comparative Law. 37 (4): 781–808. doi:10.2307/840224. JSTOR 840224.
^ Smith, G. B. (1988). «Chapter 7: Socialist Legality and the Soviet Legal System». Soviet Politics. Palgrave. pp. 137–162. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-19172-7_7. ISBN 978-0-333-45919-5.
^ Magna Carta Archived 10 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Fordham University
^ Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Law, 4
^ Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Law, 3
^ Pollock (ed) Table Talk of John Selden (1927) 43; «Equity is a roguish thing. For law we have a measure… equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is longer or narrower, so is equity. ‘Tis all one as if they should make the standard for the measure a Chancellor’s foot.»
^ Gee v Pritchard (1818) 2 Swans. 402, 414
^ Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First – Chapter the First Archived 5 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
^ Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Law, 17
^ Ferrari, Silvio (2012). «Chapter 4: Canon Law as a Religious Legal System». In Huxley, Andrew (ed.). Religion, Law and Tradition: Comparative Studies in Religious Law. Routledge. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-136-13250-6. Divine law… is eternal and cannot be changed by any human authority.
^ Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 159
^ Boudinhon, Auguste. «Canon Law.» Archived 31 March 2019 at the Wayback Machine The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 9 August 2013
^ Wiesner-Hanks, Merry (2011). Gender in History: Global Perspectives. Wiley Blackwell. p. 37.
^ Raymond Wacks,
Law: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015) pg. 13.
^ Peters, Dr. Edward, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap. «Home Page». CanonLaw.info. Archived from the original on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 24 September 2019.
^ Blessed John Paul II, Ap. Const. (1990). «Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones John Paul II 1990». Archived from the original on 24 March 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
^ Friedman, Lawrence M., American Law: An Introduction (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1984), pg. 70.
^ William Wirt Howe, Studies in the Civil Law, and its Relation to the Law of England and America (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1896), pg. 51.
«In one of his elaborate orations in the United States Senate Mr. Charles Sumner spoke of «the generous presumption of the common law in favor of the innocence of an accused person;” yet it must be admitted that such a presumption cannot be found in Anglo-Saxon law, where sometimes the presumption seems to have been the other way. And in a very recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States, the case of Coffin, 156 U. S. 432, it is pointed out that this presumption was fully established in the Roman law, and was preserved in the canon law.»
^ Anderson, Law Reform in the Middle East, 43
^ Giannoulatos, Islam, 274–275
^ Sherif, Constitutions of Arab Countries, 157–158
^ Saudi Arabia Archived 30 August 2006 at the Wayback Machine, Jurist
^ Akhlaghi, Iranian Commercial Law, 127
^ Hallaq, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, 1
^ Edward H. Levi, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (2013), p. 1-2.
^ Jerman v. Carlisle, 130 S.Ct. 1605, 1614, 559 U.S. 573, 587 (2010), Sotomayor, J.
^ Heise, Michael (1999). «The Importance of Being Empirical». Pepperdine Law Review. 26 (4): 807–834. Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 18 December 2019.
^ Posner, Eric (24 July 2015). «The rise of statistics in law». ERIC POSNER. Archived from the original on 20 December 2019. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
^ Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, Book XI: Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution, Chapters 6–7 Archived 3 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine
^ Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, XVII
^ Caldwell, Ernest (2016). «Chinese Constitutionalism: Five-Power Constitution». Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law. Archived from the original on 25 February 2022. Retrieved 8 January 2020.
^ A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court Archived 6 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Supreme Court of the United States
^ House of Lords Judgments Archived 6 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine, House of Lords
^ Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Archived 21 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine, Bundesverfassungsgericht
^ Jurisprudence, publications, documentation Archived 9 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Cour de cassation
^ Goldhaber, European Court of Human Rights, 1–2
^ Patterson, Brown v. Board of Education
^ Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 37–82
^ E.g., the court president is a political appointee (Jensen–Heller, Introduction, 11–12). About the notion of «judicial independence» in China, see Findlay, Judiciary in the PRC, 282–284
^ ^a ^b Sherif, Constitutions of Arab Countries, 158
^ Rasekh, Islamism and Republicanism, 115–116
^ ^a ^b Riker, The Justification of Bicameralism, 101
^ About «cabinet accountability» in both presidential and parliamentary systems, see Shugart–Haggard, Presidential Systems, 67 etc.
^ ^a ^b Haggard, Presidents, Parliaments and Policy, 71
^ Olson, The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe, 7
^ See, e.g. Tuberville v Savage (1669), 1 Mod. Rep. 3, 86 Eng. Rep. 684, where a knight said in a threatening tone to a layperson, «If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you.»
^ History of Police Forces Archived 29 December 2006 at the Wayback Machine, History.com Encyclopedia
^ Des Sergents de Ville et Gardiens de la Paix à la Police de Proximité, La Préfecture de Police
^ Weber, Politics as a Vocation
^ Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, 154
^ In these cases sovereignty is eroded, and often warlords acquire excessive powers (Fukuyama, State-Building, 166–167).
^ Bureaucracy Archived 15 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Online Etymology Dictionary
^ Albrow, Bureaucracy, 16
^ Mises, Bureaucracy, II, Bureaucratic Management Archived 14 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine
^ ^a ^b Kettl, Public Bureaucracies, 367
^ Weber, Economy and Society, I, 393
^ Kettl, Public Bureaucracies, 371
^ Hazard–Dondi, Legal Ethics, 22
^ Hazard–Dondi, Legal Ethics, 1
^ The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom [1979] ECHR 1 at 49 Archived 16 September 2006 at the Wayback Machine Case no. 6538/74
^ «British English: Esquire». Collins Dictionary. n.d. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
^ «American English: Esquire». Collins Dictionary. n.d. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
^ Ahamd, Lawyers: Islamic Law Archived 1 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine
^ Hazard–Dondi, Legal Ethics, 22–23
^ ^a ^b Fine, The Globalisation of Legal Education, 364
^ Warren, Civil Society, 3–4
^ Locke, Second Treatise, Chap. VII, Of Political or Civil_Society. Chapter 7, section 87
^ Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, 3, II, 182 Archived 1 April 2007 at the Wayback Machine
^ Karkatsoulis, The State in Transition, 277–278
^ (Pelczynski, The State and Civil Society, 1–13; Warren, Civil Society, 5–9)
^ Zaleski, Pawel (2008). «Tocqueville on Civilian Society. A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality». Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte. 50.
^ Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity, 98–99
^ Jakobs, Pursuing Equal Opportunities, 5–6
^ Kaldor–Anheier–Glasius, Global Civil Society, passim Archived 17 August 2007 at the Wayback Machine
^ Karkatsoulis, The State in Transition, 282–283. «Archived copy» (PDF). Archived from the original on 17 August 2007. Retrieved 2 September 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^ Although many scholars argue that «the boundaries between public and private law are becoming blurred», and that this distinction has become mere «folklore» (Bergkamp, Liability and Environment, 1–2).
^ E.g. in England these seven subjects, with EU law substituted for international law, make up a «qualifying law degree». For criticism, see Peter Birks’ poignant comments attached to a previous version of the Notice to Law Schools Archived 20 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
^ Pagden, Anthony (1991). Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). UK: Cambridge University Press. p. xvi. ISBN 978-0-521-36714-1.
^ History of the UN Archived 18 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine, United Nations. Winston Churchill (The Hinge of Fate, 719) comments on the League of Nations’ failure: «It was wrong to say that the League failed. It was rather the member states who had failed the League.»
^ D’Amato, Anthony (11 November 2010). «Is International Law Really ‘Law’?». Northwestern University Law Review. 79. Archived from the original on 3 August 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
^ Schermers-Blokker, International Institutional Law, 900–901
^ Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System International Criminal Court Archived 23 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, 32
^ Redfem, International Commercial Arbitration, 68–69
^ Gaffey, Conor (4 May 2016). «Why the African Union wants to be more like the EU». Newsweek. Archived from the original on 1 January 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^ Babarinde, Olufemi (April 2007). «The EU as a Model for the African Union: the Limits of Imitation» (PDF). Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series. Miami — Florida European Union Center. 7 (2). Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 November 2019. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^ Schermers–Blokker, International Institutional Law, 943
^ See the fundamental C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen Archived 21 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine, and Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. Archived 9 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine decisions of the European Court.
^ Chalmers, D.; Barroso, L. (7 April 2014). «What Van Gend en Loos stands for». International Journal of Constitutional Law. 12 (1): 105–134. doi:10.1093/icon/mou003. Archived from the original on 26 February 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^ Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 Howell’s State Trials 1030; [1765] 95 ER 807 Archived 19 November 2008 at the Wayback Machine
^ «Entick v Carrington». 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029 (1765). US: Constitution Society. Archived from the original on 21 October 2003. Retrieved 13 November 2008.
^ Locke, The Second Treatise, Chapter 9, section 124
^ Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law, 47
^ Auby, Administrative Law in France, 75
^ Cesare Beccaria’s seminal treatise of 1763–1764 is titled On Crimes and Punishments (Dei delitti e delle pene).
^ ^a ^b Brody, Acker and Logan, Criminal Law, 2; Wilson, Criminal Law, 2
^ Dennis J. Baker, Glanville Williams Textbook of Criminal Law (London: 2012), 2
^ See e.g. Brody, Acker and Logan, Criminal Law, 205 about Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
^ See e.g. Feinman, Law 111, 260–261 about Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968).
^ Dörmann, Doswald-Beck and Kolb, Elements of War Crimes, 491
^ Kaiser, Leistungsstörungen, 333
^ About R v Dudley and Stephens [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC Archived 28 February 2005 at the Wayback Machine, see Simpson, Cannibalism and the Common Law, 212–217, 229–237
^ Pelser, Criminal Legislation, 198
^ The States Parties to the Rome Statute Archived 23 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine, International Criminal Court
^ Wehberg, Pacta Sunt Servanda, 775
^ About Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Archived 5 December 2004 at the Wayback Machine [1893] 1 QB 256, and the element of consideration, see Beale and Tallon, Contract Law, 142–143
^ Austotel v Franklins (1989) 16 NSWLR 582
^ ^a ^b Pargendler, Maria (2018). «The Role of the State in Contract Law: The Common-Civil Law Divide» (PDF). Yale Journal of International Law. 43 (1): 143–189. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2848886. S2CID 3548111. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 January 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
^ e.g. in Germany, § 311 Abs. II Archived 11 January 2007 at the Wayback Machine BGB
^ «§ 105 BGB Nichtigkeit der Willenserklärung». dejure.org. Archived from the original on 9 December 2006. Retrieved 5 December 2006.
^ Smith, The Structure of Unjust Enrichment Law, 1037
^ Lee, R. W. (April 1918). «Torts and Delicts». Yale Law Journal. 27 (6): 721–730. doi:10.2307/786478. ISSN 0044-0094. JSTOR 786478. Archived from the original on 1 January 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^ Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
^ ^a ^b Donoghue v Stevenson ([1932] A.C. 532, 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31, [1932] All ER Rep 1). See the original text of the case in UK Law Online Archived 16 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
^ Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 532, 580
^ ^a ^b Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852
^ e.g. concerning a British politician and the Iraq War, George Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd [2004] EWHC 2786
^ Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] AC 426
^ In the UK, Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; c.f. in the U.S., National Labor Relations Act
^ Harris, The Bubble Act, 610–627
^ e.g. Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] 2 All ER 426 Archived 22 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine
^ Armory v Delamirie (1722) 93 ER 664, 1 Strange 505
^ Matthews, The Man of Property, 251–274
^ Savigny, Das Recht des Besitzes, 25
^ Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chap. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government. Chapter 9, section 123.
^ McGhee, Snell’s Equity, 7
^ c.f. Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1
^ Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas Ch 61
^ Nestlé v National Westminster Bank plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260
^ A Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon Archived 10 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine, The Law Society
^ Berle, Modern Corporation and Private Property
^ WIPO, Intellectual Property, 3
^ According to Malloy (Law and Economics, 114), Smith established «a classical liberal philosophy that made individuals the key referential sign while acknowledging that we live not alone but in community with others».
^ Jakoby, Economic Ideas and the Labour Market, 53
^ «The Becker-Posner Blog». Archived from the original on 19 May 2010. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
^ Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 386–405
^ Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, 1–44
^ Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, IV, 7
^ Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, V, 9
^ Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, VIII, 23
^ ^a ^b Cotterrell, Sociology of Law, Jary, Collins Dictionary of Sociology, 636
^ Ehrlich, Fundamental Principles, Hertogh, Living Law, Rottleuthner, La Sociologie du Droit en Allemagne, 109, Rottleuthner, Rechtstheoritische Probleme der Sociologie des Rechts, 521
^ Cotterrell, Law, Culture and Society
^ Rheinstein, Max Weber on Law and Economy in Society, 336
^ Cotterrell, Emile Durkheim: Law in a Moral Domain, Johnson, The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, 156
^ Gurvitch, Sociology of Law, 142
^ Papachristou, Sociology of Law, 81–82

Sources

Printed sources

Ahmad, Ahmad Atif. «Lawyers: Islamic Law» (PDF). Oxford Encyclopedia of Legal History. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 March 2009.
Akhlaghi, Behrooz (2005). «Iranian Commercial Law and the New Investment Law FIPPA». In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-148787-3.
Albrow, Martin (1970). Bureaucracy (Key Concepts in Political Science). London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-11262-5.
Anderson, J.N.D. (January 1956). «Law Reform in the Middle East». International Affairs. 32 (1): 43–51. doi:10.2307/2607811. JSTOR 2607811.
Aristotle. Athenian Constitution . Translated by Frederic George Kenyon – via Wikisource. See original text in Perseus program Archived 8 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine.
Barzilai, Gad (2003), Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. The University of Michigan Press, 2003. Second print 2005 ISBN 0-472-11315-1
Auby, Jean-Bernard (2002). «Administrative Law in France». In Stroink, F.A.M.; Seerden, René (eds.). Administrative Law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States. Intersentia. ISBN 978-90-5095-251-4.
Gad Barzilai (2003). Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11315-6.
Bayles, Michael D. (1992). «A Critique of Austin». Hart’s Legal Philosophy. Springer. ISBN 978-0-7923-1981-8.
Beale, Hugh; Tallon, Denis (2002). «English Law: Consideration». Contract Law. Hart Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84113-237-2.
Bergkamp, Lucas (2001). «Introduction». Liability and Environment. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-1645-1.
Berle, Adolf (1932). Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York, Chicago, Commerce Clearing House, Loose leaf Service division of the Corporation Trust Co.
Blackstone, William (1765–69). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Archived from the original on 5 July 2011. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
Brody, David C.; Acker, James R.; Logan, Wayne A. (2000). «Introduction to the Study of Criminal Law». Criminal Law. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 978-0-8342-1083-7.
Campbell, Tom D. (1993). «The Contribution of Legal Studies». A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy edited by Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-0-631-19951-9.
Churchill, Winston (1986). «Problems of War and Peace». The Hinge of Fate. Houghton Mifflin Books. ISBN 978-0-395-41058-5.
Clarke, Paul A. B.; Linzey, Andrew (1996). Dictionary of Ethics, Theology and Society. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-06212-1.
Coase, Ronald H. (November 1937). «The Nature of the Firm». Economica. 4 (16): 386–405. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x.
Coase, Ronald H. (October 1960). «The Problem of Social Cost (this online version excludes some parts)» (PDF). Journal of Law and Economics. 3: 1–44. doi:10.1086/466560. S2CID 222331226. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli; Levine, Ross (2001). Financial Structures and Economic Growth. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-54179-4.
Cotterrell, Roger (1992). The Sociology of Law: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-406-51770-8.
Cotterrell, Roger (1999). Emile Durkheim: Law in a Moral Domain. Edinburgh University Press/ Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-1339-7.
Cotterrell, Roger (2006). Law, Culture and Society: Legal Ideas in the Mirror of Social Theory. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2511-7.
Curtin, Deirdre; Wessel, Ramses A. (2005). «A Survey of the Content of Good Governance for some International Organisations». Good Governance and the European Union: Reflections on Concepts, Institutions and Substance. Intersentia nv. ISBN 978-90-5095-381-8.
Albert Venn, Dicey (2005). «Parliamentary Sovereignty and Federalism». Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Adamant Media Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4021-8555-7.
Dörmann, Knut; Doswald-Beck, Louise; Kolb, Robert (2003). «Appendix». Elements of War Crimes. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-81852-0.
Durkheim, Émile (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. The Free Press reprint. ISBN 978-0-684-83638-6.
Dworkin, Ronald (1986). Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-51836-0.
Ehrlich, Eugen (2002) [1936]. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Transaction Books reprint.
Farah, Paolo (August 2006). «Five Years of China WTO Membership. EU and US Perspectives about China’s Compliance with Transparency Commitments and the Transitional Review Mechanism». Legal Issues of Economic Integration. 33 (3): 263–304. doi:10.54648/LEIE2006016. S2CID 153128973. SSRN 916768.
Feinman, Jay M. (2006). «Criminal Responsibility and Criminal Law». Law 101. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 978-0-19-517957-6.
Findlay, Marc (1999). «‘Independence’ and the Judiciary in the PRC». In Jayasuriya, Kanishka (ed.). Law, Capitalism and Power in Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-19742-7.
Fine, Tony F. (2001). «The Globalization of Legal Education in the United States». In Drolshammer, Jens I.; Pfeifer, Michael (eds.). The Internationalization of the Practice of Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-1620-8.
Finn, John E. (1991). «Constitutional Dissolution in the Weimar Republic». Constitutions in Crisis: Political Violence and the Rule of Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505738-6.
France, Anatole (1894). The Red Lily (Le lys rouge). Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 11 February 2007.
Fukuyama, Francis (2005). State-Building (First edition in English 2004 ed.). Editions Livanis. ISBN 978-960-14-1159-0.
Georgiadis, Apostolos S. (1997). «Sources of Law». General Principles of Civil Law (in Greek). Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers. ISBN 978-960-232-715-9.
Giannoulatos, Anastasios (1975). «Characteristics of Modern Islam». Islam – A General Survey (in Greek). Athens: Poreuthentes.
Glenn, H. Patrick (2000). Legal Traditions of the World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-876575-2.
Michael D., Goldhaber (2007). «Europe’s Supreme Court». A People’s History of the European Court of Human Rights. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-3983-6.
Gordley, James R.; von Mehren; Arthur Taylor (2006). An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68185-8.
Gurvitch, Georges; Hunt, Alan (2001) [1942]. «Max Weber and Eugen Ehrlich». Sociology of Law. Athens: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7658-0704-5.
Haggard, Stephan (2001). «Institutions and Public Policy in Presidential Systems». Presidents, Parliaments and Policy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77485-7.
Hallaq, Wael Bahjat (2005). «Introduction». The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00580-7.
Hamilton, Michael S., and George W. Spiro (2008). The Dynamics of Law, 4th ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7656-2086-6.
Harris, Ron (September 1994). «The Bubble Act: Its Passage and Its Effects on Business Organization». The Journal of Economic History. 54 (3): 610–27. doi:10.1017/S0022050700015059. JSTOR 2123870?. S2CID 154429555. Archived from the original on 25 February 2022. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press.
Hatzis, Aristides N. (November 2002). «The Nature of the Firm». European Journal of Law and Economics. 14 (3): 253–263. doi:10.1023/A:1020749518104. S2CID 142679220.
Hayek, Friedrich (1978). The Constitution of Liberty. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-32084-7.
Hazard, Geoffrey C.; Dondi, Angelo (2004). Legal Ethics. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-4882-7.
Hegel, Georg (1820). Elements of the Philosophy of Right (in German). Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 9 January 2007.
Heinze, Eric (2013). The Concept of Injustice. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-52441-4.
Hertogh, Marc, ed. (2009). Living Law: Reconsidering Eugen Ehrlich. Hart. ISBN 978-1-84113-898-5.
Hobbes, Thomas (1651). «Chapter XVII: Of the Causes, Generation, and Definition of a Commonwealth». Leviathan. Archived from the original on 27 November 2010.
Jakobs, Lesley A. (2004). «Retrieving Equality of Opportunity». Pursuing Equal Opportunities. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-53021-7.
Jakoby, Stanford M. (Winter 2005). «Economic Ideas and the Labour Market – Chapter: Cycles of Economic Thought» (PDF). Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal. 25 (1): 43–78. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 June 2007. Retrieved 12 February 2007.
Jary, David; Julia Jary (1995). Collins Dictionary of Sociology. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-470804-1.
Jensen, Eric G.; Heller, Thomas C. (2003). «Introduction». In Jensen, Eric G.; Heller, Thomas C. (eds.). Beyond Common Knowledge. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-4803-2.
Johnson, Alan (1995). The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Blackwells publishers. ISBN 978-1-55786-116-0.
Kaiser, Dagmar (2005). «Leistungsstōrungen». In Staudinger, Julius von; Martinek, Michael; Beckmann, Roland Michael (eds.). Eckpfeiler Des Zivilrechts. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-8059-1019-4.
Kaldor, Mary; Anheier, Helmut; Glasius, Marlies (2003). «Global Civil Society in an Era of Regressive Globalisation». In Kaldor, Mary; Anheier, Helmut; Glasius, Marlies (eds.). Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926655-5.
Kant, Immanuel (1998) [1785]. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Translated by Mary Gregor). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62695-8.
Karkatsoulis, Panagiotis (2004). «Civil Society and New Public Management». The State in Transition (in Greek). Athens: I. Sideris. ISBN 978-960-08-0333-4.
Kazantzakis, Nikos (1998) [1909]. «Law». Friedrich Nietzsche and the Philosophy of Law and Polity (in Greek). Athens: Editions Kazantzakis.
Kelly, J.M. (1992). A Short History of Western Legal Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-876244-7.
Kettl, Don (November 2006). «Public Bureaucracies». The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions edited by R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder and Bert A. Rockman. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927569-4.
Linarelli, John (2004). «Nietzsche in Law’s Cathedral: Beyond Reason and Postmodernism – Chapter: Cycles of Economic Thought» (PDF). Catholic University Law Review. 53: 413–457. doi:10.2139/ssrn.421040. S2CID 54617575. SSRN 421040. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2019.
Locke, John (1689). «Book II» . Two Treatises of Government – via Wikisource.
Luban, David (2001). «Law’s Blindfold». Conflict of Interest in the Professions. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512863-5.
Malloy, Robin Paul (1994). «Adam Smith and the Modern Discourse of Law and Economics». In Paul Malloy, Robin; Evensky, Jerry (eds.). Adam Smith and the Philosophy of Law and Economics. Springer. ISBN 978-0-7923-2796-7.
Mattei, Ugo (1997). «The Distinction between Common Law and Civil Law». Comparative Law and Economics. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-06649-0.
Matthews, Paul (Autumn 1995). «The Man of Property». Medical Law Review. 3 (3): 251–274. doi:10.1093/medlaw/3.3.251. PMID 11657690. S2CID 41659603. Archived from the original on 25 February 2022. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
McGhee, John (2000). Snell’s Equity. London: Sweet and Maxwell. ISBN 978-0-421-85260-0.
Mises, Ludwig von (1962) [1944]. Bureaucracy (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 December 2006. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
Montesquieu, Baron de (1748). «Book XI: Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution, Chapters 6–7». The Spirit of Laws (translated in English by Thomas Nugent, revised by J. V. Prichard). Archived from the original on 18 January 2009. Retrieved 14 January 2007.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1887). «Zweite Abhandlung: «Schuld», «schlechtes Gewissen» und Verwandtes». Zur Genealogie der Moral – Eine Streitschrift (in German).
Ober, Josiah (1996). «The Nature of Athenian Democracy». The Athenian Revolution: Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00190-6.
Olivelle, Patrick (2005). Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517146-4.
Olson, David M., Norton, Philip (1996). «Legislatures in Democratic Transition». The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe. Frank Cass (UK). ISBN 978-0-7146-4261-1.
Papachristou, T.K. (1999). «The Sociological Approach of Law». Sociology of Law (in Greek). Athens: A.N. Sakkoulas Publishers. ISBN 978-960-15-0106-2.
Patterson, James T. (2001). Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515632-4.
Pelczynski, A.Z. (1984). The State and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press.
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (1997). «Rule of Law and Constitutionalism». The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-0933-0.
Rasekh, Mohammad (2005). «Are Islamism and Republicanism Compatible?». In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-148787-3.
Raz, Joseph (1979). The Authority of Law, Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-825493-5.
Redfem, Alan (2004). «Regulation of International Arbitration». Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 978-0-421-86240-1.
Rheinstein, M. (1954). Max Weber on Law and Economy in Society. Harvard University Press.
Richardson, W.E.J. (2004). «Introduction». Hammurabi’s Laws. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-567-08158-2.
Riker, William H. (January 1992). «The Justification of Bicameralism». International Political Science Review. 13 (1): 101–116. doi:10.1177/019251219201300107. JSTOR 1601440. S2CID 154483653.
Robertson, Geoffrey (2006). Crimes Against Humanity. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-102463-9.
Roeber, A. G. (October 2001). «What the Law Requires Is Written on Their Hearts: Noachic and Natural Law among German-Speakers in Early Modern North America». William and Mary Quarterly. Third Series. 58 (4): 883–912. doi:10.2307/2674504. JSTOR 2674504.
Rottleuthner, Hubert (December 1989). «La Sociologie du Droit en Allemagne» (PDF). Droit et Société (in French). 11: 101–120. doi:10.3406/dreso.1989.1026. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 November 2006. Retrieved 10 February 2007.
Rottleuthner, Hubert (1984). «Rechtstheoritische Probleme der Sociologie des Rechts. Die Kontroverse zwischen Hans Kelsen und Eugen Ehrlich (1915/17)». Rechtstheorie (in German). 5: 521–551.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762). «Book II: Chapter 6 (Law)». The Social Contract (translated in English by G. D. H. Cole) (in French). Archived from the original on 22 February 2008. Retrieved 8 November 2007.
Salazar, Philippe-Joseph (2019). Air Law. Juta. ISBN 9781485133148.
Savigny, Friedrich Carl von (1803). «Zu welcher Classe von Rechten gehört der Besitz?». Das Recht des Besitzes (in German). Archived from the original on 6 October 2008. Retrieved 11 October 2008.
Schermers, Henry G.; Blokker, Niels M. (1995). «Supervision and Sanctions». International Institutional Law. The Hague/London/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publisher.
Sealy, L.S.; Hooley, R.J.A. (2003). Commercial Law. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Sherif, Adel Omar (2005). «Constitutions of Arab Countries and the Position of Sharia». In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-148787-3.
Shugart, Matthew Soberg; Haggard, Stephan (2001). «Institutions and Public Policy in Presidential Systems». In Haggard, Stephan; McCubbins, Mathew Daniel (eds.). Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77485-7.
Simpson, A.W.B. (1984). Cannibalism and the Common Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-75942-5.
Smith, Stephen A. (Winter 2003). «The Structure of Unjust Enrichment Law: Is Restitution a Right or a Remedy» (PDF). Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 36 (2): 1037–1062. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 January 2012. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
Stein, Peter (1999). Roman Law in European History. Cambridge University Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-521-64372-6.
Stone, Julius (1965). «Early Horizons of Justice in the West». Human Law and Human Justice. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-0215-7.
Tamanaha, Brian Z. (2004). «Locke, Montesquieu the Federalist Papers». On the Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-60465-9.
Théodoridés, Aristide (1999). «law». Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Routledge (UK). 0-415-18589-0.
VerSteeg, Russ (2002). Law in Ancient Egypt. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-89089-978-6.
Warren, Mark E. (1999). Civil Society and Good Governance (PDF). Washington DC: Center for the Study of Voluntary Organisations and Services, Georgetown University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 October 2008.
Washofsky, Mark (2002). «Taking Precedent Seriously». Re-Examining Progressive Halakhah edited by Walter Jacob, Moshe Zemer. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-57181-404-3.
Weber, Max (1978). «Bureaucracy and Political Leadership». Economy and Society, Volume I (Translated and edited by Claus Wittich, Ephraim Fischoff, and Guenther Roth). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-03500-3.
Weber, Max (1919). Politics as a Vocation – via Wikisource.
Weber, Max (1964). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Edited with Introduction by Talcott Parsons – Translated in English by A. M. Henderson). The Free Press of Glencoe. ASIN B-000-LRHAX-2.
Wehberg, Hans (October 1959). «Pacta Sunt Servanda». The American Journal of International Law. 53 (4): 775–786. doi:10.2307/2195750. JSTOR 2195750. S2CID 147466309.
Wilson, William (2003). «Understanding Criminal Law». Criminal Law. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-582-47301-0.
World Intellectual Property Organization (1997). «The System of Intellectual Property». Introduction to Intellectual Property. Kluwer Law International. ISBN 978-90-411-0938-5.
Silvestri, Paolo, «The ideal of good government in Luigi Einaudi’s Thought and Life: Between Law and Freedom» Archived 25 February 2022 at the Wayback Machine, in Paolo Heritier, Paolo Silvestri (Eds.), Good government, Governance, Human complexity. Luigi Einaudi’s legacy and contemporary societies, Leo Olschki, Firenze, 2012, pp. 55–95.

Online sources

«A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court» (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 July 2017. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
«A Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon» (PDF). The Law Society. January 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 September 2008. Retrieved 1 September 2008.
Bix, Brian. «John Austin». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 26 June 2007. Retrieved 14 February 2007.
«bureaucracy». Online Etymology Dictionary. Archived from the original on 15 January 2009. Retrieved 2 September 2007.
«C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen«. Eur-Lex. Archived from the original on 21 March 2007. Retrieved 19 January 2007.
«C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v ENEL«. Eur-Lex. Archived from the original on 9 January 2009. Retrieved 1 September 2007.
«Des Sergents de Ville et Gardiens de la Paix à la Police de Proximité : la Préfecture de Police au Service des Citoyens» (in French). La Préfecture de Police de Paris. Archived from the original on 6 May 2008. Retrieved 24 January 2007.
«Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court)» (in German). Bundesverfassungsgericht. Archived from the original on 21 November 2006. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
Green, Leslie. «Legal Positivism». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 9 June 2007. Retrieved 10 December 2006.
«History of Police Forces». History.com Encyclopedia. Archived from the original on 29 December 2006. Retrieved 10 December 2006.
«History of the UN». About the United Nations/History. Archived from the original on 18 February 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2008.
«House of Lords Judgments». House of Lords. Archived from the original on 10 November 2006. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
«Jurisprudence, publications, documentation» (in French). Cour de cassation. Archived from the original on 9 February 2007. Retrieved 11 February 2007.
«law». Law.com Dictionary. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 10 February 2007.
«law». Online Etymology Dictionary. Archived from the original on 2 July 2017. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
«legal». Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. Archived from the original on 26 December 2005. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
«Magna Carta». Fordham University. Archived from the original on 10 September 2014. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
Marmor, Andrei (1934). «The Pure Theory of Law». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 9 June 2007. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
«Saudi Arabia». Jurist. Archived from the original on 30 August 2006. Retrieved 2 September 2006.
«The States Parties to the Rome Statute». International Criminal Court. Archived from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 10 February 2007.
«The World Factbook – Field Listing – Legal system». CIA. Archived from the original on 26 December 2018. Retrieved 13 October 2007.

External links

DRAGNET: Search of free legal databases from New York Law School Archived 3 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine
WorldLII – World Legal Information Institute
CommonLII – Commonwealth Legal Information Institute
AsianLII – Asian Legal Information Institute (AsianLII)
AustLII – Australasian Legal Information Institute
BaiLII – British and Irish Legal Information Institute
CanLII – Canadian Legal Information Institute
NZLII – New Zealand Legal Information Institute
PacLII – Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute
SAfLII – Southern African Legal Information Institute

Источник

I just really hate it when people twist what the state of the law is, or make extreme claims with colorful language about what is a fairly unexceptional case *under current law*. ❋ Unknown (2009)

It is this feature of the natural law that justifies, on Aquinas’s view, our calling the natural law ˜law.™ ❋ Murphy, Mark (2008)

This involves at least two separate claims: In one sense, it can be understood as a thesis about the concept of law, maintaining that what we call ˜law™ can only be those norms which are backed by sanctions of the political sovereign. ❋ Marmor, Andrei (2007)

Considering that the current law and society does not recognize this as legally actionable, I think restore may be a small step in the direction of accountability, *but only if it is applied only to those cases that absolutely cannot be prosecuted under current criminal law* I am not refering to provability here, but to whether an alleged act meets the current legal definition of rape. ❋ Unknown (2006)

(TOH-ruh, TAWR-uh, TOY-ruh) The law on which Judaism is founded (torah is Hebrew for law). ❋ Unknown (2002)

Before the objector can make out his case, that the life of the slave is protected by the law, he must not only show that the _words of the law_ grant him such protection, but that such a state of public sentiment exists as will carry out the provisions of the law in their true spirit. ❋ American Anti-Slavery Society (N/A)

‘I do not say, however, that there is no good woman at all, but the species is rare; and hence an old law says that no _law concerning good women_ should be made, for that laws are to be made concerning things of usual occurrence, as it is written in _Auth. sinc prohib_., etc., _quia vero_ and L. _Nam ad ca_, Dig. ❋ Various (N/A)

As _publication_ is essential to the binding power of a law, in fact to its existence _as law_, you will of course defeat your persecutors, and put them to shame, on the principle of _ex post facto_. ❋ Various (N/A)

I am not of course, speaking now of that species of slander against which the law of libel provides a remedy, but of that of which the Gospel alone takes cognisance; for the worst injuries which man can do to man, are precisely those which are too delicate for _law_ to deal with. ❋ Frederick W. Robertson (N/A)

Lynch, all violations of the law, _against the peace and dignity of the said people of_ —- settlement; and to discover and bring to speedy punishment, _all illegal combinations_ — to rid the country of such as are dangerous to the welfare of this settlement — to preserve the peace, and _generally to vindicate the law_, within the settlement aforesaid. ❋ J. L. McConnel (N/A)

The first assumption is this — _that polygamy and divorce were both sins under the law of Moses, although sanctioned by the law_. ❋ E. N. [Editor] Elliott (N/A)

States had modified their cruel slave Code, the States were granted the right to pass _ex post facto_ laws in order to give the cold-blooded murder of captured Negro soldiers the semblance of law, — and by a _civil law_ too. ❋ George Washington Williams (N/A)

At first, I did not grant that he had, strictly speaking, given us a new law, and quoted the words of John, that «the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ;» but when I afterwards saw that by «_a new law_,» they meant merely the gospel, or the New Testament, I answered in the affirmative. ❋ John Foxe (N/A)

Foiled in their attempts to frighten away Miss Crandall’s pupils by their proceedings under the obsolete ‘pauper and vagrant law,’ Mr. Judson and those who acted with him pressed upon the Legislature, then in session, a demand for the enactment of a law which should enable them to accomplish their purpose; and in that bad purpose they succeeded, by securing the following enactment, on the 24th of May, 1833, known as the ‘_black law_.’ ❋ George Washington Williams (N/A)

As noted earlier, Chief Justice Marshall’s definition on this occasion of the obligation of a contract as the law which binds the parties to perform their undertakings was not free from ambiguity, owing to the uncertain connotation of the term _law_. ❋ Edward Samuel Corwin (1920)

The universal law of nature, which the authors of the old charges have properly called the moral, is therefore the _only law_ suited in every respect to be adopted as the Masonic code. ‘Mackeys’ ❋ Unknown (1913)

It will bring its penalty, for the violation of law carries in itself its own penalty, its own punishment — _it is a part of law_; but cease the violation and the penalty ceases. ❋ Ralph Waldo Trine (1912)

For, though they that speak of this subject use to confound jus and lex, right and law, yet they ought to be distinguished; because right consisteth in liberty to do or to forbear, whereas law determineth and bindeth to one of them; so that law and right differ as much as obligation and liberty; which in one and the same matter are inconsistent. ❋ Unknown (1909)

<[censored]> has recently been used against the in [order] to [demonstrate] the of . ❋ Walex (2003)

Disclaimer: As you are [accountable] under the law and failure to act in [compliance] with it may cost you your life, liberty and/or property, [do NOT attempt] to act, live or exist, nor to refrain from acting, living or existing under the law without the advice of a licensed attorney. ❋ A Box Of Signs (2009)

You, [sir], have [committed] an act that our society disapproves of. You have broken [the law] and will pay, sir! ❋ BrianBbbbbb (2006)

(1) After showing up for work 3 days in a row, Jack’s boss had to [lay down the law].
(2) «You come in my yard a-trespassing again, I’m ‘onna [hafta] [call the law]!» ❋ HM (2004)

«You [studied] 5 hours for that 5 [question] [quiz]? You’re such a law» ❋ Anonymous (2003)

law loves our gay [professor]. He/she is a sopot [na] [bakla] ❋ Hpsssss (2011)

Bro 1: Man, I had a [shitton] of [homework] last night.
Bro 2: Did you at least [get it] all done?
Bro 1: Law’s Law, bro. ❋ MonsieurLaw (2011)

Your Wife: «My brother [Todd’s] wife is such a cow!»
You: «Who gives [a rat’s]? She’s my [in-law in-law].» ❋ Uncle Des (2010)

«I am [gonna] Will-Law you. He is [not worth it], he’s [just plain rude].» ❋ ChaiKittyBurps (2021)

Teacher: You didn’t [show your work] on the [homework]
Student: It doesn’t say «show your work,» so [by law] I don’t have to ❋ Malignanttumour (2019)

Источник

Table of Contents

What does the word law mean?
Where did the word law come from?
What is the base word for lawyer?
What’s the difference between a lawyer and an attorney?
What type of lawyer makes the most money?
Are attorneys better than lawyers?
Who makes more attorney or lawyer?
Why are lawyers called Esquire?
Are lawyers unhappy?
What does Esquire mean after someones name?
What is Esquire magazine target audience?
Who uses Esquire?
Is Esquire a Scrabble word?
Who owns Esquire Philippines?
Is Esquire a good magazine?
What does GQ stand for?
How much is a single Esquire magazine?
Does Walmart sell Esquire magazine?
Are magazines cheaper at Walmart?
What does Walmart do with old magazines?
Does Walmart sell vogue?

Noun. law, rule, regulation, precept, statute, ordinance, canon mean a principle governing action or procedure. law implies imposition by a sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all subject to that authority.

Where did the word law come from?

From Middle English lawe, laȝe, from Old English lagu (“law”), from Old Norse lǫg (“law”, literally “things laid down or fixed”), originally the plural of lag (“layer, stratum, a laying in order, measure, stroke”), from Proto-Germanic *lagą (“that which is laid down”), from Proto-Indo-European *legʰ- (“to lie”).

What is the base word for lawyer?

lawyer (n.) as a surname), “one versed in law, one whose profession is suits in court or client advice on legal rights,” from Middle English lawe “law” (see law) + -iere.

What’s the difference between a lawyer and an attorney?

An attorney is considered the official name for a lawyer in the United States. An attorney has passed the bar exam and has been approved to practice law in his jurisdiction. Although the terms often operate as synonyms, an attorney is a lawyer but a lawyer is not necessarily an attorney.

What type of lawyer makes the most money?

Highest-Paid Specialties for Lawyers

Medical Lawyers. Medical lawyers make one of the highest median wages in the legal field.
Intellectual Property Attorneys. IP attorneys specialize in patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
Trial Attorneys.
Tax Attorneys.
Corporate Lawyers.

Are attorneys better than lawyers?

However, there is a difference in the definition of lawyer and attorney. A lawyer is an individual who has earned a law degree or Juris Doctor (JD) from a law school. An attorney can give legal advice and represent clients in court. Attorneys are advocates for their clients.

Who makes more attorney or lawyer?

How do lawyer salaries compare to similar careers? Lawyers earn 34% more than similar careers in California.

Why are lawyers called Esquire?

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the title Esquire signified the status of a man who was below a knight but above a gentleman. Over the centuries, the esquire title became common in legal professions, including sheriffs, justices of the peace, and attorneys.

Are lawyers unhappy?

Studies show that 56% of lawyers are frustrated with their careers, and law-firm associates consistently rank at the top of “unhappy professional” lists. Other studies show that lawyers struggle with substance abuse, anxiety, and depression more often than other professions.

What does Esquire mean after someones name?

1 : a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight. 2 : a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight. 3 —used as a title of courtesy often by attorneys usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname John R. Smith, Esq.

What is Esquire magazine target audience?

Esquire is out to impress the advertising community that not only is it the ”pre-eminent men’s magazine in America,” as the magazine boasts, but also that its readership of 30- to 49-year-olds are the leaders now and of the future.

Who uses Esquire?

In the United States, the term is almost exclusively reserved for lawyers; much as one with a Ph. D. or M.D. is called “Dr.” or a knight becomes “Sir.”

Is Esquire a Scrabble word?

ESQUIRE is a valid scrabble word.

Who owns Esquire Philippines?

Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng

Is Esquire a good magazine?

No it’s not perfect – but for less than $1 an issue delivered – Esquire is a great Supplemental Style Look Book. Founded in 1932, Esquire Men’s Magazine is a monthly magazine with a circulation of 700K and has been a staple of men’s style since the first great depression.

What does GQ stand for?

Gentlemen’s Quarterly

How much is a single Esquire magazine?

Easy Return policy

Single Issue $ 6.99 1 Print Issue +Shipping starts from $4	1 Print Issue Shipping options at checkout
Single Issue $ 6.99 1 Print Issue	1 Print Issue Shipping options at checkout
Free shipping for Annual Subscriptions only in mainland USA. Shipping charges will be extra for Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico.

Does Walmart sell Esquire magazine?

Comag Esquire Magazine – Walmart.com – Walmart.com.

Are magazines cheaper at Walmart?

If you still prefer to hold the news in your hands, then consider subscribing to your favorite magazine instead of buying it from a store like Walmart. According to a 2016 study from MagNet, monthly magazines offer subscriptions for an average of 63 percent off cover prices. That discount can’t be beat.

What does Walmart do with old magazines?

They recycle/throw out the unsold periodicals. when I worked at walmart (MANY YEARS AGO) they did the same with paperback books. When I used to work at an arcade there would be piles and piles of coverless magazines in the mall employee entrance for people to take.

Does Walmart sell vogue?

Vogue Magazine – Walmart.com – Walmart.com.

Источник

SOURCE: Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 4.13

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Introduction
Law is a Delegation of authority from the true sovereign: The People
How law protects the sovereign people: By limiting government power
Two Methods of Creating “obligations” clarify the definition of “law”
Authorities on “law”
CORRECTIVE (past) or PREVENTIVE (future) Remedy?
Abuse of Law as Religion
Civil Statutes are not “Law” as the Bible Defines It
Too much law causes crime!
How to prevent abuses or misuses of the word “law” by government workers
Resources for Further Research

“Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with You? They [CORRUPT lawyers and CORRUPT judges] gather together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood. But the Lord has been my defense, and my God the rock of my refuge. He has brought on them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; the Lord our God shall cut them off.”
[Psalm 94:20-23, Bible, NKJV]

“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the [PRIVATE, constitutionally protected] right of an individual.”
[Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819]

1. INTRODUCTION

A VERY important thing to learn is what is the LEGAL definition of “law” and what classifies as “law” generally? This article contains some authorities on this subject derived from many different places on this site. We put this page in the menus to remind our members of the supreme importance of this subject. If you would like an expanded version of this article in a format suitable for use as a memorandum of law in a legal proceeding, see:

To summarize the requirements to qualify as “law” in a governmental sense from this page:

It must apply equally to ALL. It cannot compel INEQUALITY of treatment between any man or class of men. See Form #05.033.
It cannot do collectively what people individually cannot NATURALLY do. In other words, in the words of Frederic Bastiat, it aggregates the individual right of self-defense into a collective body so that it can be delegated. A single human CANNOT delegate a right he does not individually ALSO possess, which indirectly implies that no GROUP of men called “government” can have any more COLLECTIVE rights under the collective entity rule than a single human being. Click here for a video on the subject.
It cannot punish a citizen for an innocent action that was not a crime or not demonstrated to produce measurable harm. The ability to PROVE such harm with evidence in court is called “standing”.
It cannot compel the redistribution of wealth between two private parties. This is ESPECIALLY true if it is called a “tax”.
It cannot interfere with or impair the right of contracts between PRIVATE parties. That means it cannot compel income tax withholding unless one or more of the parties to the withholding are ALREADY public officers in the government.
It cannot interfere with the use or enjoyment or CONTROL over private property, so long as the use injures no one. Implicit in this requirement is that it cannot FAIL to recognize the right of private property or force the owner to donate it to a PUBLIC USE or PUBLIC PURPOSE. In the common law, such an interference is called a “trespass”.
The rights it conveys must attach to LAND rather than the CIVIL STATUS (e.g. “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.) of the people ON that land. One can be ON land within a PHYSICAL state WITHOUT being legally “WITHIN” that state (a corporation) as an officer of the government or corporation (Form #05.042) called a “citizen” or “resident”. See:
7.1 Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008.
7.2 Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 4 covers how LAND and STATUS are deliberately confused through equivocation in order to KIDNAP people’s identity (Form #05.046) and transport it illegally to federal territory.
(“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status of the people who live in it.” [Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)])
It must provide a remedy AFTER an injury occurs. It may not PREVENT injuries before they occur. Anything that operates in a PREVENTIVE rather than CORRECTIVE mode is a franchise. There is no standing in a REAL court to sue WITHOUT first demonstrating such an injury to the PRIVATE or NATURAL rights of the Plaintiff or VICTIM.
It cannot acquire the “force of law” from the consent of those it is enforced against. In other words, it cannot be an agreement or contract. All franchises and licensing, by the way, are types of contracts.
It does not include compacts or contracts between private people and governments. Rights that are INALIENABLE cannot be contracted away, even WITH consent. See Form #05.003.
It cannot, at any time, be called “voluntary”. Congress and even the U.S. Supreme Court call the IRC Subtitle a “income tax” voluntary. See Exhibits #05.025 and #05.051.
It does not include franchises, licenses, or civil statutory codes, all of which derive ALL of their force of law from your consent in choosing a civil domicile (Form #05.002).

Any violation of the above rules is what the Bible calls “devises evil by law” in Psalm 94:20-23 as indicated above.

The ONLY thing we are aware of that satisfies ALL of the above criteria is:

The criminal law.
The common law, which is based on EQUALITY of treatment of all parties.

Everything else only applies to a SUBSET of the society or class within society, and therefore does NOT apply equally to all.

“If the court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the Constitution,” as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, “it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence.” [. . .] The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society [e.g. wars, political conflict, violence, anarchy].”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court 1895)]

“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money or “benefits”, privileges, or franchises, from the government] that war in your members [and your democratic governments]? You lust [after other people’s money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the deceitful government]. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship [statutory “citizenship”] with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [STATUTORY “citizen”, “resident”, “inhabitant”, “person” franchisee] of the world [or the governments of the world] makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]

All of your freedom and autonomy derives from EQUALITY [between YOU and the government in court], and therefore the only thing that can be “law” in a truly and perfectly free society is the CRIMINAL law and the COMMON law. We cover this extensively in Form #05.033 and Video 1 of our Foundations of Freedom Series, Form #12.021. Everything that produces INEQUALITY MUST be voluntary AND God FORBIDS CHRISTIANS from volunteering in relation to governments or civil rulers!

“I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.‘ But you have not obeyed Me. Why have you done this?

“Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.’”

So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

________________________________________________

“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” or domiciliary in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their [government] gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]

SATAN’S MAIN SOURCE OF STRENGTH is tempting people to GIVE UP EQUALITY and rights in exchange for privileges, franchises, or “benefits”. That’s what the serpent did in the garden and that’s what every government since then has made a BUSINESS out of called a “franchise”.

“Again, the devil took Him [Jesus] up on an exceedingly high [civil/legal status above all other humans] mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these things [“BENEFITS”] I will give You if You will fall down [BELOW Satan but ABOVE other humans] and worship [serve as a PUBLIC OFFICER] me.”

Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.”
[Matt. 4:8-11, Bible, NKJV]

If you want a dramatization of the above temptation, watch the following video on our site:

Devil’s Advocate: Lawyers

All civil societies are based on compact and therefore contract. Since Christians cannot contract with secular governments or civil rulers as anything OTHER than a Merchant and NEVER a Buyer, they cannot become subject to man’s pagan civil franchise statutes and may be governed only by the common law and God’s law:

“Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people. It was entrusted by them, as far as was necessary for the purpose of forming a good government, to the Federal Convention; and the Convention executed their trust, by effectually separating the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive powers; which, in the contemplation of our Constitution, are each a branch of the sovereignty. The well-being of the whole depends upon keeping each department within its limits.”
[Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 U.S. 6, 3 Dall. 6, 1 L.Ed. 485 (1794)]

“There is but one law which, from its nature, needs unanimous consent. This is the social compact; for civil association is the most voluntary of all acts. Every man being born free and his own master, no one, under any pretext whatsoever, can make any man subject without his consent. To decide that the son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man.”
[The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1762, Book IV, Chapter 2]

“Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people [the Jews, who today are the equivalent of Christians] scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom; their [CIVIL] laws are different from all other people’s [because they are God’s laws!], and they do not keep the king’s [unjust] laws. Therefore it is not fitting for the king to let them remain. If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who do the work, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.”
[Esther 3:8-9, Bible, NKJV]

“Those people who are not governed [ONLY] by GOD and His laws will be ruled by tyrants.”
[William Penn (after whom Pennsylvania was named)]

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature [God and His laws], and not as the gift of [the civil franchise statutes enforced by] their chief magistrate [or any government law].”
[Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134]

2. LAW IS A DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FROM THE TRUE SOVEREIGN: THE PEOPLE

What is the purpose of law? First, let’s define it:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomenon or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority[the “sovereign”], and having binding legal force. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, 50 S.Ct. 165, 74 L.Ed. 683. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme [sovereign] power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, §22.

The “law” of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law, in rulings of its courts. Dauer’s Estate v. Zabel, 9 Mich.App. 176, 156 N.W.2d. 34, 37.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884]

In other words, the “sovereign” within any nation or state is the ruler of that state and makes all the rules and laws with the explicit intention to provide the most complete protection for his, her, or their rights to life, liberty, and property. Different political systems have different sovereigns. In England, which is a monarchy, the sovereign is the King so all laws are enacted by Parliament by or through his delegated authority. In America, the “sovereign” is the People both individually and collectively, “We the People”, who created government to protect their collective and individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Here is how the Supreme Court describes it:

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)]

Because the People in America are the sovereigns, because we are all equal under the law, and because we have no kings or rulers above us, and because all people have a natural, God-given, inviolable right to contract, then the Constitution was used as the vehicle by which the people got together to exercise their sovereignty and power to contract in order to delegate very limited and specific authority to the federal government. Any act done and any law passed by the federal government which is not authorized by the Constitution is unlawful, because it is not authorized by the written contract called the Constitution that is the source of ALL of their delegated authority. Again, here is how the Supreme Court describes our system of government, which it says is based on “compact”.

“In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact [consent expressed in a written contract called a Constitution or in positive law]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.”
[Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6]

Below is the legal definition of “compact” to prove our point that the Constitution and all federal law written in furtherance of it are indeed a “contract”:

“Compact, n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states. Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states concerning matters of mutual concern. A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. See also Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 281]

Enacting a mutual agreement into positive law and which takes the form of a Constitution, then, becomes the vehicle for proving the fact that the People collectively agreed and directly consented to allow the government to pass laws that will protect their rights. When our federal government then passes laws or “acts”, the Congressional Record becomes the legal evidence or proof of all of the elected representatives who consented to the agreement. Since we sent these representatives to Washington D.C. to represent our interests, then the result is that we indirectly consented to allow them to bind us to any new agreements or contracts (called statutes) written in furtherance of our interests. If the statute or law passed by Congress will have an adverse impact on our rights, it can then be said that indirectly we consented or agreed to any adverse impact, because the majority voted in favor of their elected representatives.

Public servants then, are just the apparatus or tool or machinery that the sovereign People use for protecting their life, liberty, and property and thereby governing themselves. It is ironic that the most important single force that law is there to protect from is disobedient public servants who want to usurp authority from the people. Our federal government essentially is structured as an independent contractor to the sovereign states, and the contract is the Constitution. The Contract delegated authority or jurisdiction only over foreign affairs and foreign commerce. There are a few very minor exceptions to this general rule which we will discuss subsequently. As the definition above shows, the apparatus and machinery of government is simply the “rudder” that steers the ship, but the Captain of the ship is the People individually and collectively. In a true Republican Form of Government, the REAL government is the people individually and collectively, and not their public servants.

Law is therefore the contractual method used by the sovereign for delegating his authority to those under him and for governing and ruling the nation. Frederic Bastiat in his book The Law, further helps us define and understand the purpose of law:

We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

So we can see that law is force and that it must apply equally to all if liberty is to be protected. If it applies unequally to one class of persons over another, then it turns from being an instrument of liberty to an instrument of oppression and tyranny.

Many people think the purpose of law is to promote public policy. According to Bastiat, the purpose of law is to remedy injustice after it occurs, and there is a world of difference between these two opposing views. The law, in fact, is only there for public protection, but NOT for public advocacy of what some bureaucrat “thinks” would be good. Law is a negative concept and not a positive concept. Law is there to provide remedy for harm AFTER an injury occurs, not to encourage or mandate some FUTURE good. Even the Bible agrees with this conclusion, where the Apostle Paul says:

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
[Romans 13:9-10, Bible, NKJV]

________________________________________________________________________

“Do not strive with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.”
[Prov. 3:30, Bible, NKJV]

Our interpretation of what the above scriptures are saying is that you should not confront, interfere with, strive, or oppose a man unless he has done you some personal harm or is about to cause you harm and you want to prevent it. Your legal rights define and circumscribe the boundary over which he cannot cross without doing you harm. The act of him doing you harm is referred to as “evil”. The law is the vehicle for rebuking and correcting the evil and harm under such circumstances and that is its only legitimate purpose. As we made plain in the introduction to Chapter 1, Christians are commanded in Eccl. 12:13-14 to “fear the Lord”, and “fearing the Lord” is defined in Prov. 8:13 as “hating evil”, which means eliminating and opposing it at every opportunity. The process of acquiring knowledge about what is evil and hating evil is called “morality”, and it is the purpose of parenting and every good government to develop and encourage morality in everyone in society.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, “where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
[George Washington in his Farewell Address; See also George Washington’s Farewell Address Presented by Pastor Garrett Lear]

Consequently, the purpose of the law from a spiritual and legal perspective is only to provide remedy for harm AFTER an injury occurs, not to encourage or mandate some FUTURE good, “benefit”, or even civil political objective. Here is another excerpt from Bastiat’s book, The Law, that explains this assertion:

Law Is a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed – then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, agreed with this philosophy when he said:

“With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens–a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another [prevent injustice, NOT promote justice], shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.“
[Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320]

The purpose of the law also cannot be to promote charity, because charity and force are incompatible. Promoting charity with the law is promoting INjustice, which cannot be the proper role of law. Law should only be used to prevent injustice. Here is Bastiat’s perspective from The Law again:

The Law and Charity

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” and you turn to the law, but the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

Another word for plunder is theft. Whenever the government or the people use the law as an instrument of theft, and the government as a Robinhood, then the purpose of government turns from punishing past injustice to:

Punishing success by making people who work harder and earn more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. This discourages a proper work ethic.
Robbing the rich to give to those who have the most votes. This causes democracies to devolve into “mobocracies” eventually, as low income persons vote for persons who will rob the rich and give them something for nothing. (We already have this, in that older people vote consistently for politicians who will expand and protect their social security benefits, which aren’t a trust fund at all, but instead are a Ponzi scheme paid for by younger workers, moving money from hand-to-mouth).”
An agent of organized extortion and lawlessness.
A destabilizing force in society that undermines public trust and encourages political apathy (voter participation is the lowest it has been in years.. ever wonder why).

Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about this type of plunder:

“To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

“A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word [tax] has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.“
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

The U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) said the following regarding what happens when the government becomes a Robinhood and tries to promote equality of result rather than equality of opportunity, as we describe in Form #05.033. We end up with class warfare in society done using the force of law and a mobocracy mentality:

“The present assault upon capital [meaning PRIVATE PROPERTY, Form #12.025] is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; a war of growing intensity and bitterness.

…

The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society.”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)]

Routine use of government as a means to plunder and rob from its people through taxation is the foundation of socialism. Socialism, therefore, is a form of institutionalized or organized crime. Socialism is also incompatible with Christianity, as discussed in Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016, Section 4.2. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment taxes and other government entitlement programs are examples of socialist programs which amount to organized crime to the extent that participation in them is compulsory or mandatory. For all practical purposes in today’s society, participation in these programs is mandatory for the average employee. Therefore, our government has become an organized crime ring that can and should be prosecuted under RICO laws (18 U.S.C. §225) for racketeering and extortion.

3. HOW LAW PROTECTS THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: BY LIMITING GOVERNMENT POWER

The main purpose of law is to limit government power in order to protect and preserve freedom, choice, and the sovereignty of the people.

“When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ]

An important implication of the use of law to limit government power is the following inferences unavoidably arising from it:

The purpose of law is to define and thereby limit government power.
All law acts as a delegation of authority order upon those serving in the government.
You cannot limit government power without definitions that are limiting.
A definition that does not limit the thing or class of thing defined is no definition at all from a legal perspective and causes anything that depends on that definition to be political rather than legal in nature. By political, we mean a function exercised ONLY by the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE branch.
Where the definitions in the law are clear, judges have no discretion to expand the meaning of words. Therefore the main method of expanding government power and creating what the supreme court calls “arbitrary power” is to use terms in the law that are vague, undefined, “general expressions”, or which don’t define the context implied.
We define “general expressions” as those which:
6.1 The speaker is either not accountable or REFUSES to be accountable for the accuracy or truthfulness or definition of the word or expression.
6.2 Fail to recognize that there are multiple contexts in which the word could be used.
- CONSTITUTIONAL (States of the Union).
- STATUTORY (federal territory).
6.3 Are susceptible to two or more CONTEXTS or interpretations, one of which the government representative interpreting the context stands to benefit from handsomely. Thus, “equivocation” is undertaken, in which they TELL you they mean the CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation but after receiving your form or pleading, interpret it to mean the STATUTORY context.

equivocation

EQUIVOCA’TION, n. Ambiguity of speech; the use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double signification. Hypocrites are often guilty of equivocation, and by this means lose the confidence of their fellow men. Equivocation is incompatible with the Christian character and profession.
[SOURCE: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,equivocation]

___________________________________________________________

Equivocation (“to call by the same name”) is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.

It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn’t make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.
[Wikipedia topic: Equivocation, Downloaded 9/15/2015; SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation]

6.4 PRESUME that all contexts are equivalent, meaning that CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY are equivalent.
6.5 Fail to identify the specific context implied.
6.6 Fail to provide an actionable definition for the term that is useful as evidence in court.
6.7 Government representatives actively interfere with or even penalize efforts by the applicant to define the context of the terms so that they can protect their right to make injurious presumptions about their meaning.
Any attempt to assert any authority by anyone in government to add anything they want to the definition of a thing in the law unavoidably creates a government of UNLIMITED power.
Anyone who can add anything to the definition of a word in the law that does not expressly appear SOMEWHERE in the law is exercising a LEGISLATIVE and POLITICAL function of the LEGISLATIVE branch and is NOT acting as a judge or a jurist.
The only people in government who can act in a LEGISLATIVE capacity are the LEGISLATIVE branch under our system of three branches of government: LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, and JUDICIAL.
Any attempt to combine or consolidate any of the powers of each of the three branches into the other branch results in tyranny.

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].

There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”

[. . .]

In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”
[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758, Book XI, Section 6;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.orgPublicationsSpiritOfLawssol_11.htm]

4. TWO METHODS OF CREATING “OBLIGATIONS” CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF “LAW”

The legal definition of “law” can be easily discerned by examining HOW “obligations” are created. The California Civil Code, Section 1427 defines what an obligation or duty is:

California Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3272.9]
( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 1. OBLIGATIONS IN GENERAL [1427 – 1543] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 1. DEFINITION OF OBLIGATIONS [1427 – [1428.]] ( Title 1 enacted 1872.)

An obligation is a legal duty, by which a person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing.

(Enacted 1872.)

The California Civil Code then describes how obligations may lawfully be created. Section 22.2 of the California Civil Code (“CCC”) shows that the common law shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. CCC section 1428 establishes that obligations are legal duties arising either from contract of the parties, or the operation of law (nothing else). CCC section 1708 states that the obligations imposed by operation of law are only to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

California Civil Code – CIV
DEFINITIONS AND SOURCES OF LAW
(Heading added by Stats. 1951, Ch. 655, in conjunction with Sections 22, 22.1, and 22.2 )

22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. (Added by Stats. 1951, Ch. 655.)

—————————————————————————————————————-

California Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3272.9]
( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 1. OBLIGATIONS IN GENERAL [1427 – 1543] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 1. DEFINITION OF OBLIGATIONS [1427 – [1428.]] (Title 1 enacted 1872.)

[1428.] Section Fourteen Hundred and Twenty-eight. An obligation arises either from:

One — The contract of the parties; or,

Two — The operation of law. An obligation arising from operation of law may be enforced in the manner provided by law, or by civil action or proceeding.

(Amended by Code Amendments 1873-74, Ch. 612.)

—————————————————————————————————————-

California Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3272.9]
(Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 3. OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW [1708 – 1725]
( Part 3 enacted 1872. )

Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

(Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 664, Sec. 38.5. Effective January 1, 2003.)

The phrase “operation of law” uses the word “law” and therefore implies REAL law. REAL law in turn consists of ONLY the common law and the Constitution, as we prove in this document.

Based on the above provisions of the California Civil Code, when anyone from the government seeks to either administratively or judicially enforce a “duty” or “obligation”, such as in tax correspondence, they have the burden of proof to demonstrate.

That you expressly consented to a contract with them. This would include:
- Written agreements.
- Trusts
- Statutory franchises.
  This class of obligations is what we call “private law” or “special law” throughout this document. It is NOT “law” in a classical sense.
That “operation of law” is involved. In other words, that:
- You injured a specific, identified flesh and blood person. . . and
- The injured party has standing to sue in a civil or common law action. . .and
- The party against whom the enforcement action is imposed DOES NOT consent.
  THIS is what we refer to as “law” in this document.

They must meet the above burden of proof with legally admissible evidence and may not satisfy that burden with either a belief or a presumption. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 610, neither beliefs or opinions constitute legally admissible evidence. Likewise, a presumption is not legally admissible evidence for the same reason. We cover why presumptions are not evidence in:

In practice, they NEVER can meet the above burden of proof and consequently, you will always win when they send you a tax collection notice if you know what you are doing and have read this document! That is PRECISELY why we claim and can prove that the present government is DE FACTO rather than DE JURE, as described in:

The first option above, contracts, is described in:

The first option, meaning contracts, is EXCLUDED from the definition of “law” based on the following.

Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.”

[. . .]

It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.”

[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]

Real “law” is what the above refers to as “a rule of civil conduct”. By that definition, it can only refer to the common law. Why? Because domicile is a prerequisite to enforcing civil STATUTES and it is voluntary and requires consent in some form, as we prove in the following document:

Any enforcement action that does NOT satisfy the burden of proof or proceeds upon PRESUMPTION in satisfying the above is, by definition:

An “injustice”, because it violates your right to be left alone.
A violation of due process of law because it is NOT proceeding with evidence. PRESUMPTIONS are NOT “evidence” or a substitute for evidence. See:
A purely private commercial transaction. As such, if the Plaintiff or the enforcer claim to be a “government”, they:
- Are subject to the Clearfield Doctrine. See United States v. Winstar Corp. 518 U.S. 839 (1996) .
- Are “purposefully availing themselves” of commerce in an otherwise legislatively but not constitutionally foreign jurisdiction. Hence they waive sovereign, official, and judicial immunity.
- Waive sovereign, official, and judicial immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-IV/chapter-97
A non-governmental function. REAL government PROTECTS absolutely owned private property rather than making a business or “trade or business” out of converting it to PUBLIC property or property CONTROLLED by the public.

“For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without the mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.””By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it.” – Ibid.

[William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)]

“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. “

[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
[City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944]

“Life, faculties, production— in other words individuality, liberty, property— that is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.”
[Frederic Bastiat (b. 1801 – d. 1850), The Law; http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

[More at: Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038; https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf]
A request by the Plaintiff and the GOVERNMENT court or administrative enforcer to procure absolutely owned private property.
- That property is, at minimum, the “services” needed to respond to the ILLEGAL and even UNCONSTITUTIONAL enforcement action.
- The property might also include any and all property or services that might be awarded as a consequence of the enforcement proceeding.
An attempt to make you into a Merchant under U.C.C. §2-104(1)who is SELLING absolutely owned private property to the Plaintiff or GOVERNMENT administrative enforcer.
A request or OFFER by the Plaintiff or GOVERNMENT administrative enforcer to become a Buyer under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a)of your absolutely owned private property.
A request for you to specify any and all CONDITIONS you want to attach to the use, custody, or control of your absolutely owned private property.
- As the absolute owner, you have a PRIVATE and CONSTITUTIONAL right to dictate any and ALL conditions you wish to attach to the use of your property.
  
  “PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects; ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 265.
  
  Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281, 283.
  
  A right imparting to the owner a power of indefinite user, capable of being transmitted to universal successors by way of descent, and imparting to the owner the power of disposition, from himself and his successors per universitatem, and from all other persons who have a spes successions under any existing concession or disposition, in favor of such person or series of persons as he may choose, with the like capacities and powers as he had himself, and under such conditions as the municipal or particular law allows to be annexed to the dispositions of private persons. Aust. Jur. (Campbell’s Ed.) § 1103.
  
  The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. It consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all a person’s acquisitions, without any control or diminution save only by the laws of the land. 1 Bl.Comm. 138; 2 Bl.Comm. 2, 15.
  
  The word is also commonly used to denote any external object over which, the right of property is exercised. In this sense i t is a very wide term, and includes every class of acquisitions which a man can own or have an interest in. See Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 D.S. 141, 21 Sup.Ct. 48, 45 L.Ed. 126; Lawrence v. Hennessey, 165 Mo. 659, 65 S.W. 717; Boston & L.R. Corp. v. Salem & L. R. Co., 2 Gray (Mass.), 35; National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 119 Fed. 294, 56 C.C.A. 198, 60 L.R.A. 805; Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U.S. 414, 20 Sup.Ct. 155, 44 L.Ed. 219; Stanton v. Lewis, 26 Conn. 449; Wilson v. Ward Lumber Co. (C. C.) 67 Fed. 674.
  
  —Absolute property . In respect to chattels personal property is said to be “absolute” where a man has, solely and exclusively, the right and also the occupation of any movable chattels, so permanent, but may at some times subsist and not at other times; such for example, as the property a man may have in wild animals which he has caught and keeps, and which are his only so long as he retains possession of them. 2 BL Comm. 389.—Real property . A general term for lands, tenements, and hereditaments; property which, on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir. Real property is either corporeal or incorporeal. See Code N. Y. § 462 — Separate property . The separate property of a married woman is that which she owns in her own right, which is liable only for her own debts, and which she can incumber and dispose of at her own will.—Special property. Property of a qualified, temporary, or limited nature; as distinguished from absolute, general, or unconditional property. Such is the property of a bailee in the article bailed, of a sheriff in goods temporarily in his hands under a levy, of the finder of lost goods while looking for the owner, of a person in wild animals which he has caught. Stief v. Hart, 1 N.Y. 24; Moulton v. Witherell, 52 Me. 242; Eisendrath v. Knauer, 64 111. 402; Phelps v. People, 72 N.Y. 357.
  [Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition, p. 955]
- If you fail to specify the terms and conditions of the GRANT or RENTAL of your absolutely owned private property to the opposing party, you are PRESUMED to DONATE the property to the Plaintiff or GOVERNMENT enforcer.
  
  CONSENT. An agreement to something proposed, and differs from assent. (q.v.) Wolff, Ins. Nat. part 1, SSSS 27-30; Pard. Dr. Com. part 2, tit. 1, n. 1, 38 to 178. Consent supposes,
  
  1. a physical power to act; 2. a moral power of acting; 3. a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Fonb. Eq. B; 1, c. 2, s. 1; Grot. de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. 2, c. 11, s. 6.
  
  2. Consent is either express or implied. Express, when it is given viva voce, or in writing; implied, when it is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.
  
  [. . .]
  
  – 6. Courts of equity have established the rule, that when the true owner of property stands by, and knowingly suffers a stranger to sell the same as his own, without objection, this will be such implied consent as to render the sale valid against the true owner. Story on Ag. Sec. 91, Story on Eq. Jur. Sec. 385 to 390. And courts of law, unless restrained by technical formalities, act upon the principles of justice; as, for example, when a man permitted, without objection, the sale of his goods under an execution against another person. 6 Adolph. & El 11. 469; 9 Barn. & Cr. 586; 3 Barn. & Adolph. 318, note.
  [Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1848]

To ensure that you are NEVER victimized by the ILLEGAL or UNCONSTITUTIONAL enforcement actions of especially government or de facto government enforcement actions, we recommend the following resources and/or examples to use in your defense. These documents identify YOU as the Merchant, the enforcer as the Buyer, and specify powerful “default terms and conditions” to the grant of your absolutely owned private property to them:

Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

5. AUTHORITIES ON “LAW”

“True Law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect upon the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to try to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome or at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all times and all nations, and there will be one master and one rule, that is God, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]

“Power and law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God‘s Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God‘s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man‘s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the [de facto] government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others [Form#05.033]. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
[Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819, From: Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Section 1.2; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff0100.htm]

“I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a State Legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the State. The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.“
[Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)]

_____________________________________________________________________

“To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

_____________________________________________________________________

“Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomenon or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, 50 S.Ct. 165, 74 L.Ed. 683. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, §22.

The “law” of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law, in rulings of its courts. Dauer’s Estate v. Zabel, 9 Mich.App. 176, 156 N.W.2d 34, 37.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm]
______________________________________________________________________

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right – its reason for existing, its lawfulness – is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force – for the same reason – cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man – in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor, by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labor is pain in itself – it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

__________________________________________________________________

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives,” 106 U.S., at 220. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the Citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights,” 106 U.S., at 220, 221.
[United States vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882); SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm]

___________________________________________________________________
We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm]
___________________________________________________________________

Law Is a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed – then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm]

6. CORRECTIVE (past) or PREVENTIVE (future) Remedy?

The type of remedy that a so-called “law” provides determines whether it is law that applies equally to all or merely a voluntary franchise that only applies to those who have personally consented.

If it provides a remedy for a demonstrated past injury, then it is “law” in a classical sense. We call this CORRECTIVE justice. An example of CORRECTIVE justice would be a murder conviction.
If it provides a remedy for a future injury that hasn’t yet occurred, it is a voluntary franchise. We call this PREVENTIVE justice. An example of PREVENTIVE justice would be an injunction or restraining order.

The above assertions are a product of the legal definition of “standing”. It is a fact that you cannot sue in a court of law without “standing” and if you don’t have it, your case will be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Therefore, you cannot sue in court, whether under statutes or under the common law, without STANDING.

“STANDING TO SUE DOCTRINE. Doctrine that in action in federal constitutional court by citizen against a government officer, complaining of alleged unlawful conduct there is no iusticiable controversy unless citizen shows that such conduct invades or will invade a private substantive legally protected interest of plaintiff citizen. Associated Industries of New York State v. Ickes, C.C.A.2, 134 F.2d 694, 702.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1577]

The seminal case on standing is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). It establishes that burden of proof to establish elements of standing include three elements, according to the U.S. Supreme Court:

The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see , at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);^[1] and (b) “actual or imminent, not `conjectural’ or `hypothetical,’ ” Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)).
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly. . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon Eastern Ky. Welfare 561*561 Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976).
It must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” , at 38, 43.

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the above three elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U. S. 215, 231 (1990); Warth, supra, at 508.

It is a fact that you cannot demonstrate an injury unless the injury ALREADY happened in the PAST. It is also a fact, that there is no way to prove an injury with evidence that hasn’t yet happened. Therefore, anything that acts upon the future or deals with injuries that haven’t yet happened is not “law” in a classical sense and requires consent in some form to implement. Anything that requires consent is what we call a franchise. Franchises are described in the following resources on our site:

Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

An example of something that would not be “law” in a classical sense but a voluntary franchise is the case of Registered Sex Offenders. After sex offenders are convicted and enter the jail, they are told that they will either not be released or will not be released EARLY UNLESS they consent to register their name whenever they move to a new place IN THE FUTURE. Those who manifest that consent are called “Registered Sex Offenders”. Those who don’t consent never get out of jail or take forever to get out of jail. In effect, the sex offender is being compelled to surrender their PRIVATE constitutional right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and the right to not incriminate themselves under the Fifth Amendment in exchange for the PUBLIC PRIVILEGE of being liberated from jail. This is a violation of what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine”, which we describe at length in the following source:

If in fact rights protected by the Constitution are INALIENABLE as the Declaration of Independence says, then you aren’t allowed to legally consent to give them away and any attempt to compel you to do so is an UNJUST and an INJURY:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -“

[Declaration of Independence]

“Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]

Not only can the government NOT compel or coerce you to surrender CONSTITUTIONAL rights as they do with Registered Sex Offenders, they also cannot use your failure to sign up for a franchise or pay or receive the “benefits” of said franchise (such as Social Security) as a basis for an injury and standing to sue in court. The following case explains why:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations:

[1] First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”];

[2] second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and

[3] third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

The above paragraph establishes that the government cannot use a failure to participate as standing to sue for an injury:

[1] First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”];

All franchises MUST be voluntary and participation cannot be economically or commercially coerced by the government. If it is, the participant is the target of illegal duress and they cannot be regarded as lawfully participating:

“An agreement [consensual contract] obtained by duress, coercion, or intimidation is invalid, since the party coerced is not exercising his free will, and the test is not so much the means by which the party is compelled to execute the agreement as the state of mind induced. [1] Duress, like fraud, rarely becomes material, except where a contract or conveyance has been made which the maker wishes to avoid. As a general rule, duress renders the contract or conveyance voidable, not void, at the option of the person coerced, [2] and it is susceptible of ratification. Like other voidable contracts, it is valid until it is avoided by the person entitled to avoid it. [3] However, duress in the form of physical compulsion, in which a party is caused to appear to assent when he has no intention of doing so, is generally deemed to render the resulting purported contract void. [4]”

[American Jurisprudence 2d, Duress, §21 (1999)]

_______________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Brown v. Pierce, 74 U.S. 205, 7 Wall 205, 19 L.Ed. 134

[2] Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat’l Bank, 270 U.S. 438, 70 L.Ed. 669, 46 S.Ct. 326 (holding that acts induced by duress which operate solely on the mind, and fall short of actual physical compulsion, are not void at law, but are voidable only, at the election of him whose acts were induced by it); Faske v. Gershman, 30 Misc.2d. 442, 215 N.Y.S.2d. 144; Glenney v. Crane (Tex Civ App Houston (1st Dist)), 352 S.W.2d. 773, writ ref n r e (May 16, 1962); Carroll v. Fetty, 121 W.Va. 215, 2 S.E.2d. 521, cert den 308 U.S. 571, 84 L.Ed. 479, 60 S.Ct. 85.

[3] Faske v. Gershman, 30 Misc.2d. 442, 215 N.Y.S.2d. 144; Heider v. Unicume, 142 Or. 416, 20 P.2d. 384; Glenney v. Crane (Tex Civ App Houston (1st Dist)), 352 S.W.2d. 773, writ ref n r e (May 16, 1962)

[4] Restatement 2d, Contracts §174, stating that if conduct that appears to be a manifestation of assent by a party who does not intend to engage in that conduct is physically compelled by duress, the conduct is not effective as a manifestation of assent.

The inference is therefore inescapable that:

“In order to be “law” that applies equally to ALL, it must provide a remedy AFTER an injury occurs. It may not PREVENT injuries before they occur. Anything that operates in a PREVENTIVE rather than CORRECTIVE mode is a franchise. There is no standing in a REAL court to sue WITHOUT first demonstrating such an injury to the PRIVATE or NATURAL rights of the Plaintiff or VICTIM.”

7. ABUSE OF LAW AS RELIGION

Religion is legally defined as follows:

“Religion. Man’s relation to Divinity, to reverence, worship, obedience, and submission to mandates and precepts of supernatural or superior beings. In its broadest sense includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings exercising power over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct, with future rewards and punishments. Bond uniting man to God, and a virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things. Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop, etc., of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 142 Misc. 894, 255 N.Y.S. 653, 663.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1292]

According to the above definition, every system of religion is based on:

The existence of a superior being.
Faith in the superior being.
Obedience to the laws of that superior being. This is called “worship”.
The nature of the superior being as the basis for the “government of all things”.
Supreme allegiance to the will of the superior being.

Principles of law can be abused to create a counterfeit state-sponsored religion which imitates God’s religion in every particular. To see the full extent of how this has been done and all the symptoms, see Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016, Section 14.2. Right now, we will summarize how the above elements of religion can be “simulated” through abuse of the legal system by your covetous public servants:

Government franchises can be created which make those in government superior in relation to everyone else for all those who participate. People are recruited to join the church by being compelled to participate in these franchises because they are deprived of basic necessities needed to survive if they don’t.
“Presumption” can be used as a substitute for religious faith. A presumption is simply a belief that either is not or cannot be supported by legally admissible evidence.
Fear of punishments administered under the “presumed” but not actual authority of law can be used to ensure obedience toward and therefore “worship” of the superior being.
The superior being is the government, and thereby that superior being is the basis for the “government of all things”.
Allegiance to the government is supreme because very strong punishments follow for those who refuse obedience because their OTHER God forbids it.

This section will focus on steps 1 and 2 above, which is how presumption and law are abused to create a religion that at least “appears” to most people to be a legitimate government function.

Before you can fool people using the process above, you must first dumb them down from a legal perspective. This is done by removing all aspects of legal education from the public school and junior college curricula so that only “priests” of a civil religion called “attorneys” will even come close to knowing the truth about what is going on. This will bring the population of people who know down to a small enough level that they can easily be targeted and controlled by those in the government who license and regulate them without the need for police power, guns, or military force. The legal field is so lucrative and most lawyers are so greedy that economic coercion alone is sufficient to keep the limited few who know the truth “gagged” from sharing it with others, lest their revenues dry up.

“The mouth which eats does not talk.”
[Chinese Proverb]

After you have dumbed down the masses, the sheep in the general public are easy to control through carefully targeted deception and propaganda for which the speakers are insulated from liability for their LIES.

The IRS has given itself free reign to literally lie to the public with impunity in their publications:

Internal Revenue Manual
Section 4.10.7.2.8 (05-14-1999)

IRS Publications

IRS Publications, issued by the Headquarters Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position.
IRS allows its agents to use pseudonyms other than their real legal name so that they are protected from accountability if they misrepresent the truth to the public. See:
Federal courts have given the IRS license to lie on their phone support, and in person. See:
Even the federal courts themselves routinely lie with impunity, because they are accountable to no one and the IRS doesn’t even listen to the courts below the U.S. Supreme Court anyway: Judges control the selection of grand juries and they abuse this authority to choose sheep who will do what they are told and never indict the judge himself because they are too ignorant, lazy, and uneducated to think for themselves and take a risk.
Internal Revenue Manual
4.10.7.2.9.8 (05-14-1999) Importance of Court Decisions
1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.
2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.
3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.

Now that those in government who run the system have a license to lie with impunity, next you pass a “franchise code” that has the FORM and APPEARANCE of law, but which actually ISN’T law. The U.S. Supreme Court referred to such a “code”, when it said:

“To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.“
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874) ]

In that sense, franchise codes become a vehicle for propaganda focused solely on propagating false presumptions and beliefs about the liabilities of the average American toward the government. To the legal layman and the average American however, such a ruse will at least “look” like law, but those who advance it know or at least SHOULD know that it isn’t. If they don’t know, they are victims of propaganda and mental programming in law school and government publications. Only a select few “priests” of the civil religion at the top of the civil religion who set up the fraud know the truth, and these few people are so well paid that they keep their mouths SHUT.

There are many ways to create a state-sponsored “bible” that looks like law and has the forms of law. For instance, you can:

Create a franchise agreement that “activates” or becomes legally enforceable only with your individual and explicit consent in some form. In that sense, the code which embodies this private law behaves just like a state-sponsored bible: It only applies to those who BELIEVE they are subject to it. The self-serving deception and propaganda spread by the legal profession and the government are the main reason that anyone “believes” or “presumes” that they are subject to it.
Codify the codes pertaining to a subject into a single title in the U.S. Code and then REPEAL the whole darned thing, but surround the language with so much subtle legalese that the REPEAL will be undetectable to all but the most highly trained legal minds.
Enact the code into something other than “positive law”. This makes such a code “prima facie evidence”, meaning nothing more than a “presumption” that is NOT admissible as evidence of an obligation in a court of law.

“Prima facie. Lat. At first sight on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio.App. 39, 38 N.E.2d. 596, 499, 22 O.O. 110. See also Presumption.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1189]

Now let’s apply the above concepts to show how ALL THREE have been employed to create a civil religion of socialism using the Internal Revenue Code.

First, we establish that the Internal Revenue Code is an excise tax which applies to those engaged in an activity called a “trade or business”. 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) defines this activity as “the functions of a public office”. The nature of this franchise is exhaustively described in the memorandum below:

Even the courts recognize that the Internal Revenue Code is a private law franchise agreement, when they said that it only pertains to franchisees called “taxpayers”:

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws…”
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees, and elected officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government]. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.”
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)]

Based on the above article, the nature of the Internal Revenue Code as a franchise and an excise tax is carefully concealed by both the IRS and the courts in order so that people will not know that their express consent is required and exactly how that consent was provided. If they knew that, they would all instantly abandon the activity and cease to be “taxpayers” or lawful subjects of IRS enforcement.

Next, we note that the entire Internal Revenue Code was REPEALED in 1939 and has never since been reenacted. You can see the amazing evidence for yourself right from the horse’s mouth below:

Below is the text of the repeal extracted from the above:

Internal Revenue Code of 1939, Chapter 2, 53 Stat 1

Sec. 4. Repeal and Savings Provisions.—(a) The Internal Revenue Title, as hereinafter set forth, is intended to include all general laws of the United States and parts of such laws, relating exclusively to internal revenue, in force on the 2d day of January 1939 (1) of a permanent nature and (2) of a temporary nature if embraced in said Internal Revenue Title. In furtherance of that purpose, all such laws and parts of laws codified herein, to the extent they relate exclusively to internal revenue, are repealed, effective, except as provided in section 5, on the day following the date of enactment of this act.

(b) Such repeal shall not affect any act done or any right accruing or accrued, or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil cause before the said repeal, but all rights and liabilities under said acts shall continue, and may be enforced in the same manner, as if said repeal had not been made; nor shall any office, position, employment board, or committee, be abolished by such repeal, but the same shall continue under the pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Title.

(c) All offenses committed, and all penalties or forfeitures incurred under any statute hereby repealed, may be prosecuted and punished in the same manner and with the same effect as if this act had not been passed.

Sec. 5. Continuance of Existing Law.—Any provision of law in force on the 2d day of January 1939 corresponding to a provision contained in the Internal Revenue Title shall remain in force until the corresponding provision under such Title takes effect.
[Revenue Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 1, Section 4, emphasis added]

The above repeal is also reflected in 26 U.S.C. §7851:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter B > § 7851
7851. Applicability of revenue laws

(a) General rules

Except as otherwise provided in any section of this title—

(1) Subtitle A

(A) Chapters 1, 2, 4,^[1] and 6 of this title [these are the chapters that make up Subtitle A] shall apply only with respect to taxable years [basically calendar years] beginning after December 31, 1953, and ending after the date of enactment of this title, and with respect to such taxable years, chapters 1 (except sections 143 and 144) and 2, and section 3801, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 are hereby repealed.

Note the key word “and ending after the date of enactment of this title”. That word “and” means that the taxable year must both begin after December 31, 1953 AND end after enactment of the title into law. The Internal Revenue Code was enacted into law on August 16, 1954.

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE
CHAPTER I–INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
PART 1_INCOME TAXES–Table of Contents
Sec.1.0-1 Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and regulations.

(a) Enactment of law.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which became law upon enactment of Public Law 591, 83d Congress, approved August 16, 1954, provides in part as follows:. . .

Therefore, only calendar years BOTH beginning after December 31, 1953 AND ending after August 16, 1954 are included, which means only in the calendar year 1954 is the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A enforceable. If they had meant otherwise and had meant the code to apply to all years beyond 1954, they would have said “OR” rather than “AND”.

Next, we will look at how the Internal Revenue Code consists of nothing more than simply a “presumption” that is not admissible as evidence in any legal proceeding. 1 U.S.C. §204 lists all of the titles within the U.S. Code. Of Title 26, it says that Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, is “prima facie evidence”:

1 U.S.C. §204: Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

Sec. 204. – Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each

State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States –

(a) United States Code. –

[1] The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie [by presumption] the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included:

[2] Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

Of “prima facie”, Blacks’ Law Dictionary says:

“Prima facie. Lat. At first sight on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio.App. 39, 38 N.E.2d. 596, 499, 22 O.O. 110. See also Presumption.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1189]

1 U.S.C. §204 establishes a presumption and it is a statute. That means it establishes a “statutory presumption”. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “statutory presumptions” are unconstitutional and that they are superseded by the presumption of innocence:

“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”
[Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895)]

_________________________________________________________________________________________

“It is apparent,’ this court said in the Bailey Case ( 219 U.S. 239 , 31 S. Ct. 145, 151) ‘that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.”
[Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)]

Evidence that is “prima facie” means simply a presumption. The following rules apply to presumptions:

The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty with evidence.
Only evidence and facts can convict a person.

“guilt must be proven by legally obtained evidence”
A “presumption” is not evidence, but simply a belief akin to a religion.

A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. A presumption is not evidence. A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable. Every rebuttable presumption is either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b) a presumption affecting the burden of proof. Calif.Evid.Code, §600.

In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. Federal Evidence Rule 301.

See also Disputable presumption; inference; Juris et de jure; Presumptive evidence; Prima facie; Raise a presumption.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1185]
Beliefs and opinions are NOT admissible as evidence in any court.

Federal Rules of Evidence

Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions

Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is impaired or enhanced.
[SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule610]
Presumptions may not be imposed if they injure rights protected by the Constitution:

(1) [8:4993] Conclusive presumptions affecting protected interests: A conclusive presumption may be defeated where its application would impair a party’s constitutionally-protected liberty or property interests. In such cases, conclusive presumptions have been held to violate a party’s due process and equal protection rights. [Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441, 449, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 2235; Cleveland Bed. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974) 414 US 632, 639-640, 94 S.Ct. 1208, 1215-presumption under Illinois law that unmarried fathers are unfit violates process]
[Federal Civil Trials and Evidence, Rutter Group, paragraph 8:4993, p. 8K-34]
Presumptions are the OPPOSITE of “due process” of law and undermine and destroy it:

“If any question of fact or liability be conclusively be presumed [rather than proven] against him, this is not due process of law.”

You can read more about the above in our memorandum below:

Consequently, it is unconstitutional for a judge to allow any provision of the Internal Revenue Code to be cited as legal evidence of an obligation. The only thing that can be cited is the underlying revenue statutes from the Statutes At Large, because the code itself is a presumption. That approach doesn’t work either, however, because 53 Stat. 1, Section 4 above repealed those statutes also. Therefore, there is no law to which is admissible as evidence of any obligation and therefore:

The entire Internal Revenue Code is nothing but a system of beliefs and presumptions unsupported by evidence.
Any judge that elevates such a presumption to the level of evidence is enacting law into force, and no judge has legislative powers. This is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
All judicial proceedings involving the Internal Revenue Code amount to nothing more than church worship services or inquisitions for those who “believe” the code applies to them.
If the judge allows the government to cite a provision of the I.R.C. against a private litigant without providing legally admissible evidence from the Statutes at Large which ARE positive law, he is engaging in an act of religion and belief without any evidentiary support and which CANNOT be supported.
Anyone criminally convicted under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code is nothing more than a political prisoner or a person who is a heretic against the state sponsored religion.

The mechanisms for the state sponsored religion are subtle, but all the elements are there. We will examine all of these elements in the following chapters because they are extensive.

8. CIVIL STATUTES ARE NOT “LAW” AS DEFINED IN THE BIBLE[1]

In his wonderful course on justice and mercy that we highly recommend, Pastor Tim Keller analyzes the elements that make up “justice” from both a legal and a biblical perspective.

At 19:00 he begins covering biblical justice and introduces the subject by quoting Lev. 24:22:

“You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.’”
[Lev. 24:22, Bible, NKJV]

The above scripture may seem innocuous at first until you consider what a biblical “stranger” is. In legal terms, it means a “nonresident”. A “nonresident”, in turn, is a transient wanderer who is not domiciled in the physical place that he or she is physically located. To have the SAME law for both nonresident and domiciliary means they are BOTH treated equally by the government and the court. This scripture therefore advocates equality of protection and treatment between nonresidents and domiciliaries. We cover the subject of equality of protection and treatment in:

The legal implications of Lev. 24:22 is the following:

A biblical “stranger” is called a “nonresident” in the legal field.
A biblical stranger is therefore someone WITHOUT a civil domicile in the place he is physically located.
The Bible says in Lev. 24:22 that you must have the SAME “law” for both the stranger and the domiciliary.
The civil statutory code acquires the “force of law” only upon the consent of those who are subject to it. Hence, the main difference between the nonresident and the domiciliary is consent.
The only type of “law” that is the SAME for both nonresidents and domiciliaries is the common law and the criminal law, because:
- Neither one of these two types of law requires consent of those they are enforced against.
- Neither one requires a civil domicile to be enforceable. A mere physical or commercial presence is sufficient to enforce EITHER.

The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the only way the nonresident and the domiciliary can be treated EXACTLY equally in a biblical sense is if:

The only type of “law” God authorizes is the criminal law and the common law. This means that God Himself defines “law” as NOT including the civil statutes or protection franchises.
Anything OTHER than the criminal law and common law is not “law” but merely a compact or contract enforceable only against those who individually and expressly consent. Implicit in the idea of consent is the absence of duress, coercion, or force of any kind. This means that the government offering civil statutes or “protection franchises” MUST:
- NEVER call these statutes “law” but only an offer to contract with those who seek their “benefits”.
- Only offer an opportunity to consent to those who are legally capable of lawfully consenting. Those in states of the Union whose rights are UNALIENABLE are legally incapable of consenting.
- RECOGNIZE WHERE consent is impossible, which means among those whose PRIVATE or NATURAL rights are unalienable in states of the Union.
- RECOGNIZE those who refuse to consent.
- Provide a way administratively to express and register their non-consent and be acknowledged with legally admissible evidence that their withdrawal of consent has been registered..
- PROTECT those who refuse to consent from retribution for not “volunteering”.
The civil statutory code may NOT be created, enacted, enforced, or offered against ANYONE OTHER than those who LAWFULLY consented and had the legal capacity to consent because they are either abroad or on federal territory, both of which are not protected by the Constitution. Why? Because it is a “protection franchise” that DESTROYS equality of treatment of those who are subject to it. We cover this in Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030.
Everyone in states of the Union MUST be conclusively presumed to NOT consent to ANY civil domicile and therefore be EQUAL under ALL “laws” within the venue.
Both private people AND those in government, or even the entire government are on an equal footing with each other in court. NONE enjoys any special advantage, which means no one in government may assert sovereign, official, or judicial immunity UNLESS PRIVATE people can as well.
Anyone who tries to enact, offer, or enforce ANY civil statutory “codes” and especially franchises is attempting what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “class legislation” that leads inevitably to strife in society:

“The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of $4,000 and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): ‘The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.’ 1 Hamilton’s Works (Ed. 1885) 270. The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society. It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the constitution which followed the late Civil War had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time.”

[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)]
Any attempt to refer to the civil code as “law” in a biblical sense by anyone in the legal profession is a deception and a heresy. They are LYING!
The only proper way to refer to the civil statutory code is as “PRIVATE LAW” or “SPECIAL LAW”, but not merely “law”. Any other description leads to deception.

“Private law. That portion of the law which defines, regulates, enforces, and administers relationships among individuals, associations, and corporations. As used in contradistinction to public law, the term means all that part of the law which is administered between citizen and citizen, or which is concerned with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where both the person in whom the right inheres and the person upon whom the obligation is incident are private individuals. See also Private bill; Special law. Compare Public Law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1196]

“special law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally. A private law. A law is “special” when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation. A “special law” relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied. Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754. A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality. Board of County Com’rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362. See also Private bill; Private law. Compare General law; Public law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398]
Anyone who advocates creating, offering, or enforcing the civil statutory code in any society corrupts society, usually for the sake of the love of money. In effect, they seek to turn the civil temple of government into a WHOREHOUSE. Justice is only possible when those who administer it are impartial and have no financial conflict of interest. The purpose of all franchises is to raise government revenue, usually for the “benefit” mainly of those in the government, and not for anyone else.

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [2] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [3] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [4] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [5] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [6] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[7]“
[63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]

QUESTION FOR DOUBTERS: If the analysis in this section is NOT accurate, then why did God say the following about either rejecting or disobeying His commandments and law or replacing them with man-made commandments and statutes, such as we have today?:

Israel Carried Captive to Assyria

5 Now the king of Assyria went throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria and besieged it for three years. 6 In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria took Samaria and carried Israel away to Assyria, and placed them in Halah and by the Habor, the River of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.

7 For so it was that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and they had feared other gods, 8 and had walked in the statutes of the nations whom the Lord had cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made. 9 Also the children of Israel secretly did against the Lord their God things that were not right, and they built for themselves high places in all their cities, from watchtower to fortified city. 10 They set up for themselves sacred pillars and wooden images[a] on every high hill and under every green tree. 11 There they burned incense on all the high places, like the nations whom the Lord had carried away before them; and they did wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger, 12 for they served idols, of which the Lord had said to them, “You shall not do this thing.”

13 Yet the Lord testified against Israel and against Judah, by all of His prophets, every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways, and keep My commandments and My statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by My servants the prophets.” 14 Nevertheless they would not hear, but stiffened their necks, like the necks of their fathers, who did not believe in the Lord their God. 15 And they rejected His statutes and His covenant that He had made with their fathers, and His testimonies which He had testified against them; they followed idols, became idolaters, and went after the nations who were all around them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them that they should not do like them. 16 So they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, made for themselves a molded image and two calves, made a wooden image and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. 17 And they caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and soothsaying, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger. 18 Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them from His sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone.

19 Also Judah did not keep the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made. 20 And the Lord rejected all the descendants of Israel, afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of plunderers, until He had cast them from His sight. 21 For He tore Israel from the house of David, and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin. 22 For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them, 23 until the Lord removed Israel out of His sight, as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria, as it is to this day.

[2 Kings 17:5-23, Bible, NKJV]

The above analysis is EXACTLY the approach we take in defining what “law” is in the following memorandum:

_______________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Source: Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Section 10.3; https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

[2] State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.

[3] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist), 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill.Dec. 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.

[4] Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec. 134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.

[5] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed. 2d 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed. 2d 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).

[6] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v. Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.

[7] Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App), 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).

9. TOO MUCH LAW CAUSES CRIME!

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
[Tacitus, Roman historian 55-117 A.D.]

Yes, that’s right. I, being of sound mind and aging body, do solemnly acclaim and justly affirm that I am a criminal. And, if I do my job correctly, by the time you finish reading this you will realize that not only are you a criminal also, but that it is almost impossible NOT to be a criminal in modern society; and, what you should do about it.

My premise is simply that government, not only at the federal level but in particular at the state and local level, has grown so gorged and bloated that it has become virtually impossible for any of us to remain “law-abiding citizens.” In order to be law-abiding, one must first know and understand the law.

“All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large….It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government’s behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority,”
[Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d. 1093 (9th Cir. 1981)]

Now I ask you, in today’s society how many people really know, let alone understand or even READ, “the law?” Moreover, how many policemen really know or, more importantly, understand the law? Do the lawyers and judges, who are charged with the protection of America’s most sacred document, even understand the law? Judging from the number of appealed judgments these days, it would appear that even these “protectors of justice” are unable to effectively untangle the thicket of jurisprudence created by the endless loads of fertilizer produced by the various legislatures.

Just the number of laws one would have to read and familiarize themselves with in order to become adequately knowledgeable makes the task near to impossible. It would literally be a full time and lifetime job to read and learn ALL laws and there would be no time left to have a REAL life! Why, we would all have to go to law school just to get to a proper starting point of understanding the law. Last year, in North Carolina alone, 519 new laws were passed by the General ASSembly. Sixty new laws took affect in the Old North State on January 1st of this year. Add these to the tens of thousands of laws already on the books and you begin to see the enormity of the endeavor to properly understand justice and how its principles are to be applied. And that is just in one state, folks. I wonder how many “new” laws have been instituted where you live this year?

Still skeptical? Take an afternoon and go to the nearest law library. Even the name “law library” should send a chill down any thinking person’s spine. I am not talking about a corner of your local public library where you’ll find a shelf or two stocked with reference books about a particular subject. No, I mean a whole library devoted to cataloging all the things you and I are not allowed to do. Whole rooms filled wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling with a seemingly endless array of laws, statutes, and regulations. Shelf next to shelf, volume upon volume, and page after page, creating a twisting, turning maze of decisions, rulings, and appeals. This is where you go when you seek comprehension of the chains that fetter your pursuit of happiness. Have a seat and look around at what you must learn if you really want to be an honest, up-standing, law-abiding citizen.

“It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

“It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules [of statutory construction and interpretation] and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.”
[Federalist Paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton]

Government has simply made it too easy to break the law for us not to be criminals. I mean, you are required to have a license or permit to do practically everything. That means that you must go to a bureaucrat somewhere and ask their permission before you proceed or you become a criminal. If you want to drive to work, you must first have a paper from the State that says you are allowed to operate a statutory “motor vehicle”, meaning a vehicle used in interstate commerce to effect transportation for hire. If you want to improve your home, you are required to go downtown and stand before your elected rulers and beg their indulgence and literally pay them a bribe so that you can add that patio or finish your basement. If you want to get a job to support your family, you cannot do so without a number supplied by the benevolent nannies that soil the seats of CONgress. How long does this list have to be before you realize that if you have to ask permission to do everything, not only will you eventually slip up and become a criminal, but you have also ceased to be free? With every new law enacted another little piece of liberty dies.

The Thirteenth Amendment outlaws INVOLUNTARY servitude, meaning slavery. That means you own yourself.

“Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…”
[The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 10 Wheat 66, 6 L.Ed. 268 (1825)]

If in fact you own your own body and all the fruits of your labor, then they are PRIVATE property that cannot be licensed or regulated by the government without THEM getting YOUR permission. That is the legal definition of “ownership” itself. The fact that they DON’T ask for such permission can only be explained by the fact that you must have volunteered. But how?

Ownership. Collection of rights to use and enjoy property, including right to transmit it to others. Trustees of Phillips Exeter Academy v. Exeter, 92 N.H. 473, 33 A.2d. 665, 673. The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or claim. The entirety of the powers of use and disposal allowed by law.

The right of one or more persons to possess and use a thing to the exclusion of others. The right by which a thing belongs to someone in particular, to the exclusion of all other persons. The exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal; involving as an essential attribute the right to control, handle, and dispose.

Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it, and may use it or dispose of it according to his pleasure, subject only to general laws. The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. Calif. Civil Code, §§678-680.

There may be ownership of all inanimate things which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery; of all domestic animals; of all obligations; of such products of labor or skill as the composition of an author, the goodwill of a business, trademarks and signs, and of rights created or granted by statute. Calif. Civil Code, §655.

In connection with burglary, “ownership” means any possession which is rightful as against the burglar.

See also Equitable ownership; Exclusive ownership; Hold; Incident of ownership; Interest; Interval ownership; Ostensible ownership; Owner; Possession; Title.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1106]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

“PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects; ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 265.

Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281, 283.

A right imparting to the owner a power of indefinite user, capable of being transmitted to universal successors by way of descent, and imparting to the owner the power of disposition, from himself and his successors per universitatem, and from all other persons who have a spes successions under any existing concession or disposition, in favor of such person or series of persons as he may choose, with the like capacities and powers as he had himself, and under such conditions as the municipal or particular law allows to be annexed to the dispositions of private persons. Aust. Jur. (Campbell’s Ed.) § 1103.

The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. It consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all a person’s acquisitions, without any control or diminution save only by the laws of the land. 1 Bl. Comm. 138; 2 Bl. Comm. 2, 15.

The word is also commonly used to denote any external object over which, the right of property is exercised. In this sense i t is a very wide term, and includes every class of acquisitions which a man can own or have an interest in. See Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 D. S. 141, 21 Sup. C t 48, 45 L. Ed. 126; Lawrence v. Hennessey, 165 Mo. 659, 65 S. W. 717; Boston & L. R. Corp. v. Salem & L. R. Co., 2 Gray (Mass.), 35; National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 119 Fed. 294, 56 C. C. A. 198, 60 L. R. A. 805; Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414, 20 Sup. Ct. 155, 44 L. Ed. 219; Stanton v. Lewis, 26 Conn. 449;Wilson v. Ward Lumber Co. (C. C.) 67 Fed. 674.

—Absolute property . In respect to chattels personal property is said to be “absolute” where a man has, solely and exclusively, the right and also the occupation of any movable chattels, so permanent, but may at some times subsist and not at other times; such for example, as the property a man may have in wild animals which he has caught and keeps, and which are his only so long as he retains possession of them. 2 BL Comm. 389.—Real property . A general term for lands, tenements, and hereditaments; property which, on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir. Real property is either corporeal or incorporeal. See Code N. Y. § 462 — Separate property . The separate property of a married woman is that which she owns in her own right, which is liable only for her own debts, and which she can incumber and dispose of at her own will.—Special property. Property of a qualified, temporary, or limited nature; as distinguished from absolute, general, or unconditional property. Such is the property of a bailee in the article bailed, of a sheriff in goods temporarily in his hands under a levy, of the finder of lost goods while looking for the owner, of a person in wild animals which he has caught. Stief v. Hart, 1 N.Y. 24; Moulton v. Witherell, 52 Me. 242; Eisendrath v. Knauer, 64 111. 402; Phelps v. People, 72 N.Y. 357.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition, p. 955]

Why, then, do you need “permission” from anyone, including a government, to use property and exclude all others from using, controlling, or benefitting from the property, if you have absolute ownership over it? The answer is you don’t, unless you are physically present AND domiciled where there are no constitutional rights, which means either abroad or on federal territory not within any constitutional state. See:

Perhaps nothing exemplifies my point more so than a personal experience I had several years ago. I was invited by a friend to accompany him on a fishing expedition to one of the local lakes owned by the county where we both reside. Being the careful individual that I am, I researched the laws concerning wildlife management, as well as, the regulations adopted by the county. I found that if I only fished using live bait, the law did not require that I obtain a fishing license as long as I remained in the county of my residence. I was very pleased with myself that I had found a way to save a few bucks on what promised to be an enjoyable outing.

However, the day was not to go unspoiled. Not long after we had launched our boat and found what we thought looked like a promising spot, we were approached by a game warden. I remained unconcerned as we chatted and I proudly showed him that I was only using live bait and therefore required no state sanction. He asked for proof of my residence, which I supplied via business cards and a recent tax bill that I was going to pay on my way home. It was then that he informed me that I was in violation of state law. I was beginning to protest that I was in full compliance of the wildlife management code when the warden told me he was not referring to the wildlife code. It was then that I learned I was in violation of state law for appearing in public and not possessing a picture ID. At that moment, the veil was lifted from my eyes as my day of personal enlightenment dawned.

I realized that every time I set foot off of my own property, I became a criminal. I violate the law each and every time I take a leisurely stroll around my neighborhood. In almost half a century on this earth, I have never been arrested, much less convicted of a crime; and yet, all I have to do to become a criminal in the eyes of the State is leave home! Why? Because I do not have a snapshot of myself, taken by a state-sanctioned bureaucrat, in my pocket when I go out in public. I must ask you, am I really free? Are you really free? Are your papers in order? Are you a criminal? And even if you have such papers, don’t they really evidence a public office that you don’t lawfully serve in ANYWAY, so why do you need them? See:

There are laws regulating everything from what color you can and cannot paint your house to what kind of sex in which two consenting adults are allowed to engage. Why is it like this? Crime is big business, that’s why. In fact, crime is government’s biggest industry!

Surprised to see me say that? It really isn’t all that odd when you consider that the State derives revenue on both sides of the law. Remember, all those licenses and permits you are required to obtain are accompanied by fees. While on the flip side, every breech of the never-ending, self-perpetuating, always-growing bureaucracy carries a fine. You are forced to pay in order to abide by the law so you can avoid having to pay for breaking the law.

Therefore, as the beast has grown, it has become the State’s own self interest that drives legislators to constantly search for new sources of revenue. That’s why 519 laws were passed in my home state last year. That is why 500 new laws will probably be passed this year, and again next year, and again the year after that. The only way a government can realize greater income than it does today is either by accelerating tax increases; or, by creating new ways for us to become criminals and providing the appropriately-priced bounties required to avoid becoming criminals. THAT, in FACT, is why they call every new “law” they pass a “bill”: They want more money from you! That is also why, when they want to “accuse” you of a crime, they call it “charging you” with a crime: They want to “charge” you more money. Why not just call it “alleging” or “accusing” rather than “charging”? It’s not a coincidence! So you see, every new law not only nibbles away at your freedom while further gorging an already bloated beast Bureaucracy, it also becomes a new source of revenue for the State.

So, we are left with the question, “What can be done about it?” Take my advice, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Do a little digging and find out all the different options made available to you, by your friends in government, for becoming a criminal. Then perhaps we will see the emergence of what is needed to reverse the encroachment of the law: Remove your domicile and politically and legally DISASSOCIATE with the state. Thomas Jefferson talked about why this is necessary and even made it your DUTY to do so in his famous Declaration of Independence:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

[Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, 1776]

The procedure for LAWFULLY disassociating are found in:

After you have legally and politically disassociated, you are absolved of:

Any and all attempts to enforce civil statutes against you.
The need to have a “residence”.
The need to subsidize the state with income taxes or fines.
The need to carry FAKE permission from the state called an “ID” to leave your home as a public officer and do business as such state civil officer.

Those who exercise their First Amendment right to civilly, legally, and politically disassociate from “the collective” called “the state” are referred to in this capacity as any one of the following:

“non-resident non-persons”
“nonresidents”.
“transient foreigners”.
“stateless persons”.
“in transitu”.
“transient”.
“sojourner”.
“civilly dead”.

After you civilly disassociate, then maybe they will begin to treat you with respect as the “customer” that you really are who has a right to NOT “do business” with them. That customer is called a STATUTORY “citizen” or “resident”. For more details on “non-resident non-persons”, see:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Finally, remember that the solution to this conundrum is NOT to run for political office and become further enfranchised in order to reform the system. This would only further expand the power of the state over you beyond the franchises you ALREADY ILLEGALLY participate in. See:

10. HOW TO PREVENT ABUSES OR MISUSES OF THE WORD “LAW” BY GOVERNMENT WORKERS

This section is a defense against the following fraudulent tactics by those in government:

Foundations of Freedom Course, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda, Form #12.021
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
The Beginning of Wisdom is to Call Things By Their Proper Names (OFFSITE LINK) – Stefan Molyneux
Mirror Image Rule (OFFSITE LINK)

The biblical reason for this section is explained in the following videos:

Oreilly Factor, April 8, 2015–John Piper of the Oklahoma Wesleyan University
Overcoming the World 2014 Conference: Against the World (OFFSITE LINK)-Ligonier Ministries. Click here for original source, minutes 15-24.
Words are Our Enemies’ Weapons, Part 1 (OFFSITE LINK)-Sheldon Emry
Words are Our Enemies’ Weapons, Part 2 (OFFSITE LINK)-Sheldon Emry
Roman Catholicism and the Battle Over Words (OFFSITE LINK)-Ligonier Ministries
The Keys to Freedom (OFFSITE LINK)-Bob Hamp

The legal purpose of these definitions is to prevent GOVERNMENT crime using words:

Word Crimes (OFFSITE LINK)

[. . .]

SEDM: DISCLAIMER/LICENSE AGREEMENT

4. MEANING OF WORDS

4.3 Law

The term “law” is defined as follows:

“True Law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect upon the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to try to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome or at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all times and all nations, and there will be one master and one rule, that is God, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]

“Power and law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God‘s Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God‘s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man‘s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the [de facto] government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]

“Law” is defined to EXCLUDE any and all civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges in relation to any and all governments and to include ONLY the COMMON law, the CONSTITUTION (if trespassing government actors ONLY are involved), and the CRIMINAL law.

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

[. . .]

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

_______________________________________________

[. . .]

It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]

“The words “privileges” and “immunities,” like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. “
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf] See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

_____________________________________________

“What, then, is [civil] legislation? It is an assumption [presumption] by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion [because of abuse of sovereign immunity and the act of “CONSENT” by calling yourself a “citizen”] over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will [society of men and not law], pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human [CIVIL] legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed [and ESPECIALLY those who never expressly consented in writing].”
[Natural Law, Chapter 1, Section IV, Lysander Spooner;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/SpoonerLysander/NaturalLaw.htm]

The above methods of REMOVING the protections of the common law and the constitution from the INALIENABLE rights [rights that CANNOT lawfully be given away, even WITH consent] that are protected by them has been described by the U.S. Congress as the ESSENCE of communism itself! This is especially true when you add games with legal words of art to remove even the STATUTORY limitations upon the conduct of the government. See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 841.
Sec. 841. – Findings and declarations of fact

The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [de jure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a de facto government ruled by the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and [FRANCHISE] privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution [Form #10.002]. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of, Form #05.014, the tax franchise “codes”, Form #05.001] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public FOOL system by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members [ANARCHISTS!, Form #08.020]. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to;force and violence [or using income taxes]. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced [illegally KIDNAPPED via identity theft!, Form #05.046] into the service of the world Communist movement [using FALSE information returns and other PERJURIOUS government forms, Form #04.001], trained to do its bidding [by FALSE government publications and statements that the government is not accountable for the accuracy of, Form #05.007], and directed and controlled [using FRANCHISES illegally enforced upon NONRESIDENTS, Form #05.030] in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed

The above corruption of our Constitutional Republic by the unconstitutional abuse of franchises, the violation of the rules of statutory construction, and interference with common law remedies was described by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:

“These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.

Although from the foundation of the Government this court has held steadily to the view that the Government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted, Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 326, 331, we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new territory, 380*380 acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our Government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the People of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces — the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them — is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution.“
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting]

Civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges are referred to on this website as “private law”, but not “law”. The word “public” precedes all uses of “law” when dealing with acts of government and hence, refers only to COMMON law and CRIMINAL law that applies equally to everyone, regardless of their consent. Involvement in any and all “private law” franchises or privileges offered by any government ALWAYS undermines and threatens sovereignty, autonomy, and equality, turns government into an unconstitutional civil religion, and corrupts even the finest of people. This is explained in:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

Any use of the word “law” by any government actor directed at us or any member, if not clarified with the words “private” or “public” in front of the word “law” shall constitute:

A criminal attempt and conspiracy to recruit us to be a public officer called a “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.
A solicitation of illegal bribes called “taxes” to treat us “AS IF” we are a public officer.
A criminal conspiracy to convert PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights and to violate the Bill of Rights.

The protection of PRIVATE rights mandated by the Bill of Rights BEGINS with and requires:

ALWAYS keeping PRIVATE and PUBLIC rights separated and never mixing them together.
Using unambiguous language about the TYPE of “right” that is being protected: PUBLIC or PRIVATE in every use of the word “right”. The way to avoid confusing PUBLIC and PRIVATE RIGHTS is to simply refer to PUBLIC rights as “privileges” and NEVER refer to them as “rights”.
Only converting PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights with the express written consent of the HUMAN owner.
Limiting the conversion to geographical places where rights are NOT unalienable. This means the conversion occurred either abroad or on government territory not within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional state. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law, would be violated.
Keeping the rules for converting PRIVATE to PUBLIC so simple, unambiguous, and clear that a child could understanding them and always referring to these rules in every interaction between the government and those they are charged with protecting.
Ensuring that in every interaction (and ESPECIALLY ENFORCEMENT ACTION) between the government both administratively and in court, that any right the government claims to civilly enforce against, regulate, tax, or burden otherwise PRIVATE property is proven ON THE RECORD IN WRITING to originate from the rules documented in the previous step. This BURDEN OF PROOF must be met both ADMINISTRATIVELY and IN COURT BEFORE any enforcement action may be lawfully attempted by any government. It must be met by an IMPARTIAL decision maker with NO FINANCIAL interest in the outcome and not employed by the government or else a criminal financial conflict of interest will result. In other words, the government has to prove that it is NOT stealing before it can take property, that it is the lawful owner, and expressly HOW it became the lawful owner.
Enforcing the following CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION against government jurisdiction to enforce unless and until the above requirements are met:
“All rights and property are PRESUMED to be EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE and beyond the control of government or the CIVIL statutory franchise codes unless and until the government meets the burden of proving, WITH EVIDENCE, on the record of the proceeding that:
1. A SPECIFIC formerly PRIVATE owner consented IN WRITING to convert said property to PUBLIC property.
2. The owner was either abroad, domiciled on, or at least PRESENT on federal territory NOT protected by the Constitution and therefore had the legal capacity to ALIENATE a Constitutional right or relieve a public servant of the fiduciary obligation to respect and protect the right. Those physically present but not necessarily domiciled in a constitutional but not statutory state protected by the constitution cannot lawfully alienate rights to a real, de jure government, even WITH their consent.
3. If the government refuses to meet the above burden of proof, it shall be CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED to be operating in a PRIVATE, corporate capacity on an EQUAL footing with every other private corporation and which is therefore NOT protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity.”

For a detailed exposition on the mandatory separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE as indicated above, please see the following course on our site:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025

[SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.8 Law; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]

11. RESOURCES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1. Famous Quotes About Rights and Liberty, Form #08.001, Sections 5 and 17
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FamousQuotes.pdf

2. Four Law Systems, Form #12.039
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/LibertyU/FourLawSystems.pdf

3. Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf

4. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

5. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “law”
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm

6. Common Law Practice Guide, Litigation Tool #10.013
https://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm

7. Authority and the Politics of Power (OFFSITE LINK)-Nike Research
http://nikeinsights.famguardian.org/forums/topic/authority-and-the-politics-of-power/

8. Why All Man-Made Law is Religious in Nature (OFFSITE LINK) -Family Guardian
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChurchVState/WhyAllManmadeLawRelig.htm

9. Its an Illusion -John Harris. The REAL meaning of what the de facto government calls “law”
https://sedm.org/its-an-illusion-a-lecture-in-law-by-john-harris/

10. Why We Must Personally Learn, Follow, and Enforce the Law -SEDM
https://sedm.org/home/why-we-must-personally-learn-follow-and-enforce-the-law/

11. Philosophy of Law-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_law

12. Sovereignty, Chapter 22: What is Law?-Rousas John Rushdoony, p. 129
https://sedm.org/sovereignty-rousas-rushdoony/

13. The Purpose of Law-Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/PurposeOfLaw.htm

14. The Law is No More (OFFSITE LINK) – Pastor John Weaver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vQitQtqufA

15. The Necessity of God’s Law in Society (OFFSITE LINK) -Pastor John Weaver
https://youtu.be/wA6Mo4Ewg74

16. How Much Criminalization Will You Tolerate From Your Government?-Freedom Taker
https://youtu.be/EZTMKfTP6P0

17. The Government Mafia (OFFSITE LINK) -Clint Richardson
https://sedm.org/government-mafia/

18. Illegal Everything (OFFSITE LINK)-John Stossel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

19. Buried in Law (OFFSITE LINK) -John Stossel, Fox News, 7-24/2014
https://youtu.be/B-xjjNurU50

20. What is “law”?, Nike Insights
https://nikeinsights.famguardian.org/forums/topic/what-is-law/

21. Westlaw Keycites under Key 15AK417: Force of Law-court cases demonstrating how to prove if a regulation has the force and effect of law
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/ForceOfLaw-Keycite15AK417-20090122.pdf

22. Courts Cannot Make Law (OFFSITE LINK)-Michael Anthony Peroutka Townhall

23. How Judges Unconstitutionally “Make Law”, Litigation Tool #01.009
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/HowJudgesMakeLaw.pdf

24. Restoring the Rule of Law (OFFSITE LINK) -Governor Greg Abbott of Texas
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/GovtCorruption/Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf

25. Alternative Math-How the IRS Learns Law
https://sedm.org/alternative-math-how-the-irs-learns-math/

26. Proof of Claim: Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073 -how to apply this information to challenging administrative or judicial enforcement jurisdiction
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofOfClaim.pdf

27. Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040- how to apply this information to challenging enforcement jurisdiction
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf

28. The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted, Thomas Hodgskin, Letter the Third: The Legal Right of Property-Online Library of Liberty

Источник

Princeton’s WordNetRate this definition:4.5 / 6 votes

law, jurisprudencenoun

the collection of rules imposed by authority

«civilization presupposes respect for the law»; «the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order»
lawnoun

legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity

«there is a law against kidnapping»
law, natural lawnoun

a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society
law, law of naturenoun

a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature

«the laws of thermodynamics»
jurisprudence, law, legal philosophynoun

the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do
law, practice of lawnoun

the learned profession that is mastered by graduate study in a law school and that is responsible for the judicial system

«he studied law at Yale»
police, police force, constabulary, lawnoun

the force of policemen and officers

«the law came looking for him»

GCIDERate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

Lawnoun

The Jewish or Mosaic code, and that part of Scripture where it is written, in distinction from the gospel; hence, also, the Old Testament. Specifically: the first five books of the bible, called also Torah, Pentatech, or Law of Moses.

WiktionaryRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

Lawnoun

a conical hill
Lawnoun

the Torah
Lawnoun

a generic term which can refer to the Divine commandments (primarily the Decalogue), the Old Testament in general or, most specifically, the Torah.
Lawnoun

A patronymic surname.
Lawnoun

A diminutive of Lawrence.
Etymology: From the given name Lawrence.

Samuel Johnson’s DictionaryRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

LAWnoun

Etymology: laga , Saxon; loi, French; lawgh, Erse.

1. A rule of action.

Unhappy man! to break the pious laws
Of nature, pleading in his children’s cause.
Dryden.

2. A decree, edict, statute, or custom, publickly established as a rule of justice.

He hath resisted law,
And therefore law shall scorn him further trial
Than the severity of publick power.
William Shakespeare, Coriolanus.

Thou art a robber,
A law-breaker, a villain; yield thee, thief.
William Shakespeare.

Our nation would not give laws to the Irish, therefore now the Irish gave laws to them.
John Davies, on Ireland.

One law is split into two.
Thomas Baker, Reflect. on Learning.

3. Judicial process.

When every case in law is right.
William Shakespeare, King Lear.

Who has a breast so pure,
But some uncleanly apprehensions
Keep leets and law days, and in sessions sit,
With meditations lawful.
William Shakespeare, Othello.

Tom Touchy is a fellow famous for taking the law of every body: there is not one in the town where he lives that he has not sued at a quarter-sessions.
Joseph Addison, Spectator.

4. Conformity to law; any thing lawful.

In a rebellion,
When what’s not meet, but what must be, was law,
Then were they chosen.
William Shakespeare, Coriolanus.

5. An established and constant mode or process; a fixed correspondence of cause and effect.

I dy’d, whilst in the womb he stay’d,
Attending Nature’s law.
William Shakespeare, Cymbeline.

WikipediaRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

Law

Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a science and as the art of justice. State-enforced laws can be made by a group legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes; by the executive through decrees and regulations; or established by judges through precedent, usually in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals may create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that adopt alternative ways of resolving disputes to standard court litigation. The creation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.
Legal systems vary between jurisdictions, with their differences analysed in comparative law. In civil law jurisdictions, a legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates the law. In common law systems, judges may make binding case law through precedent, although on occasion this may be overturned by a higher court or the legislature. Historically, religious law has influenced secular matters and is, as of the 21st century, still in use in some religious communities. Sharia law based on Islamic principles is used as the primary legal system in several countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.The scope of law can be divided into two domains. Public law concerns government and society, including constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law. Private law deals with legal disputes between individuals and/or organisations in areas such as contracts, property, torts/delicts and commercial law. This distinction is stronger in civil law countries, particularly those with a separate system of administrative courts; by contrast, the public-private law divide is less pronounced in common law jurisdictions.Law provides a source of scholarly inquiry into legal history, philosophy, economic analysis and sociology. Law also raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, and justice.

Webster DictionaryRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

Lawnoun

in general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts
Lawnoun

in morals: The will of God as the rule for the disposition and conduct of all responsible beings toward him and toward each other; a rule of living, conformable to righteousness; the rule of action as obligatory on the conscience or moral nature
Lawnoun

the Jewish or Mosaic code, and that part of Scripture where it is written, in distinction from the gospel; hence, also, the Old Testament
Lawnoun

an organic rule, as a constitution or charter, establishing and defining the conditions of the existence of a state or other organized community
Lawnoun

any edict, decree, order, ordinance, statute, resolution, judicial, decision, usage, etc., or recognized, and enforced, by the controlling authority
Lawnoun

in philosophy and physics: A rule of being, operation, or change, so certain and constant that it is conceived of as imposed by the will of God or by some controlling authority; as, the law of gravitation; the laws of motion; the law heredity; the laws of thought; the laws of cause and effect; law of self-preservation
Lawnoun

in matematics: The rule according to which anything, as the change of value of a variable, or the value of the terms of a series, proceeds; mode or order of sequence
Lawnoun

in arts, works, games, etc.: The rules of construction, or of procedure, conforming to the conditions of success; a principle, maxim; or usage; as, the laws of poetry, of architecture, of courtesy, or of whist
Lawnoun

collectively, the whole body of rules relating to one subject, or emanating from one source; — including usually the writings pertaining to them, and judicial proceedings under them; as, divine law; English law; Roman law; the law of real property; insurance law
Lawnoun

legal science; jurisprudence; the principles of equity; applied justice
Lawnoun

trial by the laws of the land; judicial remedy; litigation; as, to go law
Lawnoun

an oath, as in the presence of a court
Lawverb

same as Lawe, v. t
Law

an exclamation of mild surprise
Etymology: [OE. lawe, laghe, AS. lagu, from the root of E. lie: akin to OS. lag, Icel. lg, Sw. lag, Dan. lov; cf. L. lex, E. legal. A law is that which is laid, set, or fixed; like statute, fr. L. statuere to make to stand. See Lie to be prostrate.]

Chambers 20th Century DictionaryRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

Law

law, n. a rule of action established by authority: statute: the rules of a community or state: a rule or principle of science or art: the whole jurisprudence or the science of law: established usage: that which is lawful: the whole body of persons connected professionally with the law: litigation: a theoretical principle educed from practice or observation: a statement or formula expressing the constant order of certain phenomena: (theol.) the Mosaic code or the books containing it.—v.t. (coll.) to give law to, determine.—v.i. (obs.) to go to law.—adj. Law′-abid′ing, obedient to the law.—ns. Law-bind′ing; Law′-book, a book treating of law or law cases; Law′-break′er, one who violates a law; Law′-burr′ows (Scots law), a writ requiring a person to give security against doing violence to another; Law′-calf, a book-binding in smooth, pale-brown calf; Law′-day, a day of open court.—adj. Law′ful, allowed by law: rightful.—adv. Law′fully.—ns. Law′fulness; Law′giver, one who enacts laws: a legislator.—adj. Law′giving, legislating.—n. Law′ing, going to law: litigation: (obs.) the practice of cutting off the claws and balls of a dog’s forefeet to hinder it from hunting: (Scot.) a reckoning at a public-house, a tavern bill.—adj. Law′less.—adv. Law′lessly.—ns. Law′lessness; Law′-list, an annual publication containing all information regarding the administration of law and the legal profession; Law′-lord, a peer in parliament who holds or has held high legal office: in Scotland, a judge of the Court of Session; Law′-mak′er, a lawgiver; Law′-man, one of a select body with magisterial powers in some of the Danish towns of early England; Law′-mer′chant, a term applied to the customs which have grown up among merchants in reference to mercantile documents and business; Law′-mong′er, a low pettifogging lawyer; Law′-stā′tioner, a stationer who sells parchment and other articles needed by lawyers; Law′suit, a suit or process in law; Law′-writ′er, a writer on law: a copier or engrosser of legal papers; Law′yer, a practitioner in the law: (N.T.) an interpreter of the Mosaic Law: the stem of a brier.—Law Latin, Latin as used in law and legal documents, being a mixture of Latin with Old French and Latinised English words; Law of nations, now international law, originally applied to those ethical principles regarded as obligatory on all communities; Law of nature (see Nature); Law of the land, the established law of a country; Laws of association (see Association); Laws of motion (see Motion); Lawful day, one on which business may be legally done—not a Sunday or a public holiday.—Boyle’s (erroneously called Mariotte’s) law (physics), in gases, the law that, for a given quantity at a given temperature, the pressure varies inversely as the volume—discovered by Robert Boyle in 1662, and treated in a book by Mariotte in 1679; Brehon law (see Brehon); Canon law (see Canon); Case law, law established by judicial decision in particular cases, in contradistinction to statute law; Common law (see Common); Criminal law, the law which relates to crimes and their punishment; Crown law, that part of the common law of England which is applicable to criminal matters; Customary law (see Consuetudinary); Empirical law, a law induced from observation or experiment, and though valid for the particular instances observed, not to be relied on beyond the conditions on which it rests; Federal law, law prescribed by the supreme power of the United States, as opposed to state law; Forest law, the code of law which was drawn up to preserve the forests, &c., forming the special property of the English kings; Gresham’s law (polit. econ.), the law that of two forms of currency the inferior or more depreciated tends to drive the other from circulation, owing to the hoarding and exportation of the better form; Grimm’s law (philol.), the law formulating certain changes or differences which the mute consonants exhibit in corresponding words in the Teutonic branches of the Aryan family of languages—stated by Jacob Grimm (1785-1863); International law (see International); Judiciary law, that part of the law which has its source in the decisions and adjudications of the courts; Kepler’s laws, three laws of planetary motion discovered by Johann Kepler (1571-1630)—viz. (1) the orbits of the planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus; (2) the areas described by their radii vectores in equal times are equal; (3) the squares of their periodic times vary as the cubes of their mean distances from the sun; Lynch law (see Lynch); Maine law, a prohibitory liquor law passed by the legislature of Maine State, U.S.A., in 1851; Maritime, Martial, Mercantile, Military law (see the adjs.); May laws, several Prussian enactments (1873-74) directed to control the action of the Church, and limit its interference in civil matters, largely modified in 1887—often called Falk laws, from the introducer; Moral law, that portion of the Old Testament which relates to moral principles, especially the ten commandments; Mosaic, Municipal, Natural law (see the adjs.); Ohm’s law, the basis of electrical measurements, established in 1827 by Ohm (1787-1854), that the resistance of a conductor is measured by the ratio of the electromotive force between its two ends to the current flowing through it; Poor-law, -laws, laws providing for the support of paupers at the public expense; Positive law, law owing its force to human sanction as opposed to divine law; Private law (see Private); Roman law, the system of law developed by the ancient Romans, and often termed the civil law (q.v.); Salic law (see Salian); Statute law (see Statute); Sumptuary law (see Sumptuary); Verner’s law (philol.), a law stated by Karl Verner in 1875, showing the effect of the position of accent in the shifting of the original Aryan mute consonants, and s, into Low German, and explaining the most important anomalies in the application of Grimm’s law; Written law, statute law as distinguished from the common law.—Have the law of (coll.), to enforce the law against; Lay down the law, to state authoritatively or dictatorially. [M. E. lawe—A.S. lagu, from licgan, to lie; Ice. lōg.]

The Roycroft DictionaryRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

law

1. A scheme for protecting the parasite and prolonging the life of the rogue, averting the natural consequences which would otherwise come to them. 2. The crystallization of public opinion.

Editors ContributionRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

law

A rule of conduct or procedure cocreated by collective agreement or authority.

The law is cocreated by various types of politicians within the parliament.

Submitted by MaryC on January 2, 2020
law

A set of rules cocreated by a unity senate, houses of representatives, unity assembly, unity council, unity legislature, unity parliament, unity government, local unity government, regional unity government, national unity government, european unity government or international unity government who are all focused positively on cocreating optimum health, human rights, right to life, socialism, shared and equal prosperity for all, stability, socialist unity government, solidarity, cohesion, animal rights, right to housing, right to free education, right to parent, right to free preschool education, right to a standard of living, equal and identical pay for all, a universal living income system, right to internet access, economic stability, financial stability, civil rights, equal rights, equal opportunities, employment rights, childrens rights, sustainable development, sustainable development goals, united partnership, multi-party working, community empowerment systems, equal redistribution of wealth, fairness and justness across society, the country, europe and the world and contribute to the cocreation of international and national peace agreements, peace treaties, the universes truth and a fair, just and transparent system of checks and balances.

The law says we focus on the cocreation of optimum health as the priority and then human rights, animal rights, right for life and shared and equal prosperity for all.

Submitted by MaryC on January 2, 2020
law

To create, change, amend, approve, edit, enact or legislate for a rule of conduct, legislative procedure, set of rules, guidelines or principles with the prioritizing of cocreating optimum health, human rights, socialism, socialist policies, shared prosperity for all, stability, socialist unity government, solidarity, cohesion, animal rights, right to life, right to housing, right to free education, right to parent, right to free preschool education, right to a standard of living, equal and identical pay for all, a universal living income system, right to internet access, economic stability, financial stability, civil rights, equal rights, equal opportunities, employment rights, childrens rights, sustainable development, sustainable development goals, united partnership, multi-party working, community empowerment systems, equal redistribution of wealth, fairness and justness across society, the country, europe and the world and contribute to the cocreation of international and national peace agreements, peace treaties, the universes truth and a fair, just and transparent system of checks and balances.

Law and legislation is important to each human being and animal on the planet as we are all contributing to what manifests on planet earth through our collective consciousness.

Submitted by MaryC on April 1, 2020
law

A form of agreement or fasttrack within the collective consciousness of a country or jurisdiction that complies with the universes truth, collective plan for the evolution of humanity and soul agreements to ensure optimum health, human rights, right to life, fairness, justness, a form of socialist unity government and the redistribution of wealth.

Law is created in various ways.

Submitted by MaryC on June 6, 2020

Surnames Frequency by Census RecordsRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

LAW

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Law is ranked #1089 in terms of the most common surnames in America.

The Law surname appeared 32,122 times in the 2010 census and if you were to sample 100,000 people in the United States, approximately 11 would have the surname Law.

65.6% or 21,075 total occurrences were White.
15.6% or 5,021 total occurrences were Black.
14.2% or 4,568 total occurrences were Asian.
2% or 668 total occurrences were of two or more races.
2% or 665 total occurrences were of Hispanic origin.
0.3% or 125 total occurrences were American Indian or Alaskan Native.

Matched Categories

- Collection
- Concept
- Force
- Law
- Law Enforcement Agency
- Legal Document
- Philosophy

British National Corpus

Spoken Corpus Frequency

Rank popularity for the word ‘law’ in Spoken Corpus Frequency: #302
Written Corpus Frequency

Rank popularity for the word ‘law’ in Written Corpus Frequency: #897
Nouns Frequency

Rank popularity for the word ‘law’ in Nouns Frequency: #74

How to pronounce law?

How to say law in sign language?

Numerology

Chaldean Numerology

The numerical value of law in Chaldean Numerology is: 1
Pythagorean Numerology

The numerical value of law in Pythagorean Numerology is: 9

Examples of law in a Sentence

Adam Clayton Jr. Powell:

A man’s respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck.
The Ukrainian president:

As of today, 651 criminal proceedings have been registered regarding treason and collaboration activities of employees of prosecutor’s offices, pretrial investigation bodies, and other law enforcement agencies, in 198 criminal proceedings, relevant persons were notified of suspicion. In particular, more than 60 employees of the prosecutor’s office and the Security Service of Ukraine remained in the occupied territory and are working against our state.
James Comey:

I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement over the last year.
Charles Guess:

It’s a confirmed lead for us, it has generated a massive law enforcement response, as you can see, and we’re going to run this to ground.
Gracie Skogman:

We have a great base, but this far, in the majority of conversations we have had with them, many are not even aware that abortion is going to be the fundamental issue for this race, they’re not aware that the fate of our current law rests in the hands of the court, depending on this election. And so that’s the case we’re doing the best to make.

Popularity rank by frequency of use

Translation

Find a translation for the law definition in other languages:

Select another language:

— Select —
简体中文 (Chinese — Simplified)
繁體中文 (Chinese — Traditional)
Español (Spanish)
Esperanto (Esperanto)
日本語 (Japanese)
Português (Portuguese)
Deutsch (German)
العربية (Arabic)
Français (French)
Русский (Russian)
ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada)
한국어 (Korean)
עברית (Hebrew)
Gaeilge (Irish)
Українська (Ukrainian)
اردو (Urdu)
Magyar (Hungarian)
मानक हिन्दी (Hindi)
Indonesia (Indonesian)
Italiano (Italian)
தமிழ் (Tamil)
Türkçe (Turkish)
తెలుగు (Telugu)
ภาษาไทย (Thai)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Čeština (Czech)
Polski (Polish)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Românește (Romanian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Latinum (Latin)
Svenska (Swedish)
Dansk (Danish)
Suomi (Finnish)
فارسی (Persian)
ייִדיש (Yiddish)
հայերեն (Armenian)
Norsk (Norwegian)
English (English)

Word of the Day

Would you like us to send you a FREE new word definition delivered to your inbox daily?

Citation

Use the citation below to add this definition to your bibliography:

Are we missing a good definition for law? Don’t keep it to yourself…

Источник

Обновлено: 13.04.2023

Law is a system of rules within a country, region or community dealing with people’s behavior and activities. A law is also an official rule that people must obey. The word also refers to the law as practiced by lawyers, who either prosecute or defend a client.

The English word “law” means various forms of behavior. Some laws are descriptive: they simply describe how people or even natural phenomena usually behave. An example is the law of gravity. Other laws are prescriptive – they prescribe how people should behave. For example, the speed limits are laws that prescribe how fast we should drive.

In all societies relations between people are regulated by prescriptive laws. Some of them are customs – or informal rules of social and moral behavior. Some are rules we accept if we belong to particular social and cultural groups. And some are laws made by nations and enforced against all citizens within their society. The rules of social institutions are more formal than customs carrying precise penalties for those who break them. Sport clubs, for example, often have detailed rules for their members. But if a member breaks a rule and refuses to accept any punishment, the club may ask him or her to leave the club.

Law prohibits certain actions because they are against the interests of most citizens. Laws are enforced in two ways: first by the Police whose duty is to catch offenders; secondly by the law courts which find out whether a person is innocent or guilty. If he is guilty, the courts then award a punishment, either a fine or a term of imprisonment.

The laws of all countries are to be found in written records – the legal codes of countries with continental systems, the statutes and case judgments of common law countries.

Ex. I. Read the text and answer the following questions:

What does a word “law” mean?

What is a descriptive law? What is a prescriptive law? Can you give your own examples?

How are relations between people regulated in all societies?

In what ways are laws enforced?

In what written records are the laws of all countries to be found?

Ex. II. Read the text and decide if the following statements are True, False or No information.

In all societies the relation between people are regulated by customs and traditions.

The rules of social institutions are not so formal as customs carrying precise penalties for those who break them.

Aside from law being a set of rules, the word also refers to the law as practiced by lawyers, who either prosecute or defend a client.

Customs need not be made by governments, and they need not be written down.

Law prohibits certain actions because they are against the interests of most citizens.

When governments make laws for their citizens, they use a system of courts and the police to enforce these laws.

The laws of all countries are to be found in written records – the legal codes of common law countries, the statutes and case judgments of countries with continental systems.

Ex.III. Find English equivalents in the text.

Право – система правил в пределах страны, региона или общины, имеющая дело с поведением людей и их деятельностью.

Английское слово закон означает различные формы поведения.

Некоторые законы являются описательными: они просто описывают как люди или даже природные явления ведут себя.

Другие законы являются предписывающими: они предписывают, как люди должны вести себя.

Во всех обществах отношения между людьми регулируются предписывающими законами.

Закон запрещает определенные действия, потому что они противоречат интересам большинства граждан.

Ex. IV. Mind the English words and phrases with their Russian equivalents.

II. Найдите в тексте А предложения, отвечающие на следующие вопросы:
1. Кому принадлежит высказывание “Закон – это порядок, а разумное законодательство есть основа порядка” ? Aristotle said that “Law is order and good law is good order”.
2.Зачем людям правила? For human beings to live together in a society they need to have rules to govern how they’re going to live.
3.Какие бывают правила и правовые нормы? live. Rules can be of many different types. We have informal social rules, we have rules of behavior, we have rules of dress, and we have rules of conversation. In a democratic society, we speak about the rules that govern how we live and how we do business and the rules supported by the coercive power of the state.
4. Что такое право? Law is a system of rules that people are supposed to follow in a society or country. Law is a limit on different forms of behaviour.
5. Как регулируют люди свои взаимоотношения в обществе? In all societies people regulate their relations by laws.
6. Что такое обычай? Some of them are customs that is informal rules of social and moral behavior.
7. Для чего правительство создает законы и следит за их соблюдением? Without law there is anarchy in society.
8. Могут ли люди урегулировать свои разногласия неофициальным путем? Sometimes people can settle disputes using informal ways.
9. Что мы делаем, если нам нужно решить какой-либо сложный юридический вопрос? But if we do something complex such as buy or sell a house, decide whom to give our property, we seek legal advice.
10. Используем ли мы закон, чтобы вершить правосудие? We also use law to do justice.
11. Для чего существует большинство законов? Most of laws exist to make life easier, safer and happier.
III. Заполните пропуски, используя следующие слова и выражения:
legal advice, customs, law, just, enforce, to settle
1. Law is necessary in every society.
2. Сustoms are informal rules of social and moral behaviour.
3. A just decision is a fair decision.
4. Sometimes we go to the police to settle our problems.
5. If we want to sell or buy a house we seek legal advice.
6. Governments enforce law with the purpose of social control.
IV. Переведите следующие словосочетания с русского языка на английский:
The purpose of the law, a human being, a society, rules of conversation, the coercive power, different forms of the behavior; the limitation of the behavior; regulate the relations; informal rules of the behavior; to make a law; to follow the rules, to settle disputes, an informal way, to give the property, to do justice, to make life easier, safer and happier.

V. Составьте предложения, используя следующие слова:
1. Behaviour, limit, is, different, a, forms, law, on, of.
2. Social, purpose, makes, government, and, enforces, control, social, law, with, the, of.
3. Most of laws exist to make life easier, happier and safer.
VI. Найдите в тексте А и переведите на русский язык глаголы в форме 3 л. ед. ч. в Present Simple.
Underlines – подчеркивать
Plays – играть

VII. Заполните пропуски, используя глаголы, данные в скобках:
1. Social control is important.
2. Law creates a just society.
3. Laws become a part of daily life.
4. With the help of laws people settle disagreements between them.
5. In different countries laws are different.
VIII. Ответьте на вопросы упражнения II.
IX. Подготовьте пересказ текста А на английском языке.

X. Прочитайте и переведите текст В.
Text В
THE FIRST LAWS
Laws are part of human life. The oldest legal text belongs to Ur-Nammu, a king of the Mesopotamian city of Ur, 2100 B.C. It says about compensation for bodily injuries, penalties for witchcraft and punishment of runaway slaves. The oldest law code belongs to Hammurabi, a king of Babylonia, 1758 B.C. It is written on a great stone in a temple to the Babylonian god Marduk. This stone is now in the Louvre museum in Paris. The laws in this code say about crime, divorce and marriage, the rights of slave owners and slaves, debts, inheritance and property contracts. The code gives cruel punishment for crimes. Murderers and thieves get death penalty. Hammurabi’s laws are progressive because according to them the penalty can’t be harder than the crime.
Законы являются частью человеческой жизни. Старейший юридический текст принадлежит Ур -Намму, царю Месопотамского города УР, 2100 года до рождества Христова. Он говорит о компенсации за телесные повреждения, наказание за колдовство и наказания беглых рабов. Древнейший свод законов принадлежит Хаммурапи, царю Вавилонии, 1758 году до нашей эры. Они написаны на большом камне в храме Вавилонского Бога Мардука. Этот камень сейчас находится в Лувре в Париже. Законы в этом коде говорят о преступности, разводе и браке, правах рабовладельцев и рабов, долги, наследство и имущественных договоров. Код дает жестокие наказания за преступления. Убийцы и воры получают смертную казнь. Законы Хаммурапи являются прогрессивными, потому что по их мнению наказание не может быть тяжелее, чем преступление.

X. Переведите следующие словосочетания с русского языка на английский:
legal; compensation for bodily injuries punishment; runaway slaves; to belong, stone, a temple, divorce and marriage; slave owners; debts; inheritance and property contracts; cruel punishment; murderers and thieves; death penalty; according to, harder than the crime… .
XII. Найдите в тексте В предложения, отвечающие на следующие вопросы:
1. Как называется самый ранний из известных юридических текстов? The oldest legal text belongs to Ur-Nammu, a king of the Mesopotamian city of Ur, 2100 B.C.
2. Что представляет собой кодекс Хаммурапи? It says about compensation for bodily injuries, penalties for witchcraft and punishment of runaway slaves.
XIII. Подготовьте пересказ текста В на английском языке.
Discussion:
 Laws haven’t changed since primeval times. Законы не изменились с первобытных времен.
 Why do you think, no matter how hard people try, laws are always insufficient. Почему вы думаете, что, как бы ни старались люди, законы всегда недостаточно эффективны.
 How do you think the first laws can appear? The oldest law code belongs to Hammurabi, a king of Babylonia, 1758 B.C.
 Can you imagine the process of lawmaking? Yes, I can.
 What is the difference between a law and a rule? Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Rule: a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior; “it was his rule to take a walk before breakfast”; “short haircuts were the regulation” 2: something regarded as a normative example; “the convention of not naming the main character”;

XIV. Прочитайте и перескажите английские шутки:
Murder is always a mistake… One should never do anything that one cannot talk about after dinner.
Oscar Wilde
Убийство-это всегда ошибка… никогда не следует делать ничего, что нельзя говорить после обеда.Оскар Уайльд

* * *
Верь или не верь…
… в Техасе, в США, незаконно клясться возле покойника.

…в городе Нью-Арк, Нью-Джерси, США, незаконно, покупать мороженое после 6 . без письменного разрешения вашего врача.
… есть закон в штате Мичиган, США, в котором говорится, что муж является собственником волос своей жены.
… последняя воля и завещание великого французского писателя Франсуа Рабле (ок. 1490-1553) гласит: “я ничего не имею. У меня есть многое. Остальное я оставлю для нищих.”

Legal Systems
The contemporary legal systems of the world are generally based on one of three
basic systems: civil law,common law, and religious law – or combinations of these.
However, the legal system of each country is shaped by its unique history and so
incorporates individual variations.
Civil law is the most widespread system of law around the world. It is also sometimes
known as Continental European law. Countries of Europe, Latin America, Asia and
Africa use it. Governments of the Countries using Continental Law make a set of codes.
Judges use this set of codes to judge people. They must think well before making a
decision. States make laws not courts. So, laws must be clear. The model of such law is
Roman law.
Common law and equity are systems of law whose sources are the decisions in cases
by judges. Every system will have a legislature that passes new laws and statutes.
Common law is currently in practice in Ireland, most of the United Kingdom (England
and Wales and Northern Ireland), Australia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, India (excluding
Goa, Pakistan, South Africa, Canada (excluding Quebec), Hong Kong, the United
States (excluding Louisiana) and many other places.
The English legal system
The United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But
when we talk about the English legal system, we are talking about the laws of England
and Wales because Scotland and Northern Ireland have different legal systems. In fact,
Scotland has laws that are completely unknown in England and Wales.
There are basically four sources of English law, and the English Parliament is number
one.
Number two is the UK Supreme Court and the Royal Courts of Justice.
Three, the European Union, and four, the European Court of Human Rights.
So law comes from Parliament, that’s legislation, statute, acts of Parliament, written
laws. It comes from the common law decisions of judges sitting in courts – the Supreme
Court. Royal Court of Appeal, High Court and so on. But also, it comes from Europe,
from the European Commission and European Council of Ministers, as well as the
European Court of Human Rights.
The most voluminous source of law in the English legal system and probably for that
reason the most important source of law is the common law. Customs and law
decisions are important in Common Law. Common law is case law. In some cases
judges not only apply the law they make law. Their interpretations become precedents
for other courts to follow.
II. Найдите в тексте А предложения, отвечающие на следующие вопросы:
1. Имеет ли каждая страна свою собственную правовую систему?
2. Сколько существует основных правовых традиций?
3. Какие страны используют общее право Англии?
4. Какие страны используют континентально-европейское (или римское) право?
5. Что является важным в общем праве Англии?
6. Является ли общее право прецедентным правом?
7. В традиции общего права Англии судьи только применяют существующие
законы при вынесении приговора или же одновременно создают законы?
8. Является ли интерпретация судей прецедентом для использования в
дальнейшем другими судами?
9. Какую законодательную базу создают правительства стран, использующих
континентально-европейское право?
10. Кто в случае использования континентально-европейского права создает
закон: государство или суды?
11. Какими должны быть законы?
12. Что касается английской правовой системы, речь идет о правовой системе
Англии и Уэльса, Северной Ирландии и Шотландии или Северная Ирландия и
Шотландия имеют самостоятельные отличающиеся правовые системы?
13. Какие четыре источника английского права существуют?
III. Заполните пропуски, используя следующие слова и выражения:
customs, Continental or Roman, apply the law, main traditions, Common law, set, law
decisions
1. There are two … of law .
2. One is English ….
3. The second is … law.
4. … and … are important in common law.
5. Judges not only … they make law.
6. Governments make a … of codes.
IV. Переведите следующие словосочетания с русского языка на английский:
обычаи и судебные решения; в некоторых судебных делах; судьи применяют
закон; судьи создают закон; интерпретации становятся прецедентами; другие
следуют интерпретации; создают свод законов; судить людей; использовать свод
законов; хорошо подумать; законы должны быть ясными.
V. Соедините левую и правую колонки:
1) to judge а) становиться прецедентом для
2) to make a decision b) прецедентное право
3) to be different с) принять

The function of law in a society is more or less universal. It acts as a deterrent to control the evil and treacherous behavior of humans, to maintain discipline and imposes restrictions on some freedom. We live in a chaotic and uncertain world. Without an orderly environment based on and backed by law, the normal activities of life would be lacerated with chaos. Law is a social norm, the infraction of which is sanctioned in treat or in fact by the application of physical force or by a party possessing the socially recognized privilege or so acting. It provides a society with order and predictability, resolving disputes, protecting individuals and property, providing for the general welfare and protecting individual liberties.

Law and the predictability it provides cannot guarantee us a totally safe world, but it can create a climate in which people believe it is worthwhile to produce, venture fort, and to live for the morrow. It prevents the state of nature, which would be total anarchy had there been no laws. Societies today are more complex and interacting. Maintaining good order and discipline have far reaching implications on a society?s prosperity. Laws are in acted daily through out different societies for the protection and security of individuals, property, businesses and states. It permits an orderly, peaceful process for dispute resolution and provides us with the programs to establish and enable corporately, what would be impossible, or at least prohibitive, to do as individuals.

Laws should be designed to protect the individual personal and civil rights against those forces, which would curtail or restrict them. Some examples of this are freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to a fair trail and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

In the United States the respect for the law is paramount and disobedience to the law is punished. The Constitution, acts of Legislative bodies, orders of Rulings of Political Executives, Judicial Decisions and Decisions of Quasi-Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Bodies enact laws in the United States. Many societies have law and rules to prevent lawlessness and anarchy. With out it, most societies would succumb to disorder.

1. The English word «law» means various forms of behavior. Some laws are descriptive: they simply describe how people, or even natural phenomena, usually behave. An example is the law of gravity; another is laws of economics. Other laws are prescriptive − they prescribe how people ought to behave. For example, the speed limits are laws that prescribe how fast we should drive.

2. In all societies, relations between people are regulated by prescriptive laws. Some of them are customs — that is informal rules of social and moral behavior. Some are rules we accept if we belong to particular social and cultural groups. And some are laws made by nations and enforced against all citizens.

3. Customs need not be made by governments, and they need not be written down. We learn how we are to behave in society through the instruction of family and teachers, the advice of friends, etc. Sometimes, we can break these rules without any penalty. But if we continually break the rules, other members of society may criticize us, or refuse to have anything to do with us.

4. The rules of social instructions are more formal than customs, carrying penalties for those who break them. Sports clubs, for example, often have detailed rules for their members. But if a member breaks a rule and refuses to accept any punishment, the club may ask him or her to leave the club.

5. However, when governments make laws for their citizens, they use a system of courts and the police to enforce these laws. Of course, there may be instances where the law is not enforced against someone — such as when young children commit crimes, or when certain people are able to escape justice by using their money or influence.

Что такое закон?

1. В английском языке слово «закон» означает различные формы поведения. Некоторые законы носят описательный: они просто описывают , как люди, или даже природные явления, как правило , ведут себя. Примером может служить закон тяготения; другой законы экономики. Другие законы предписывающим — они предписывают , как люди должны вести себя. Например, ограничения скорости законы , которые предписывают , как быстро мы должны двигаться.

2. Во всех обществах отношения между людьми регулируются предписывающих законами. Некоторые из них являются обычаи — это неформальные правила социального и нравственного поведения. Некоторые из них являются правила , которые мы принимаем , если мы принадлежим к определенным социальным и культурным группам. А некоторые законы , сделанные странами и насильственными против всех граждан.

3. Таможенная служба не должны быть сделаны правительствами, и они не должны быть записаны. Мы узнаем , как мы должны вести себя в обществе через наставления семьи и учителей, советы друзей и т.д. Иногда мы можем нарушать эти правила без каких — либо штрафных санкций. Но если мы постоянно нарушать правила, другие члены общества могут критиковать нас, или отказываются иметь ничего общего с нами.

4. Правила социальных инструкций являются более формальным , чем обычаи, неся наказания для тех , кто нарушает их. Спортивные клубы, к примеру, часто имеют подробные правила для своих членов. Но если член нарушает правила и отказывается принять любое наказание, клуб может попросить его или ее покинуть клуб.

5. Вместе с тем, когда правительства принимают законы для своих граждан, они используют систему судов и полиции для обеспечения соблюдения этих законов. Конечно, могут быть случаи , когда закон не применяется против кого — то — например, когда маленькие дети совершают преступления, или когда определенные люди могут избежать правосудия, используя свои деньги или влияние.

что такое право?1.английское слово «право» означает различных форм поведения.некоторые законы носят описательный характер: они просто описать, как люди, или даже природные явления, как правило, веди себя прилично.например, закон гравитации, это законы экономики.другие законы являются жесткими — они устанавливают, как человек должен вести себя.например, ограничения скорости — законы, которые устанавливают, как быстро мы должны ехать.2.во всех обществах, отношения между людьми, регулируются жесткими законами.некоторые из них являются обычаи — это неформальные правила социального и морального поведения.некоторые правила, которые мы согласиться, если мы принадлежим конкретных социальных и культурных групп.и некоторые из них являются законами, принятыми наций и применяются в отношении всех граждан.3.таможня не должны быть приняты правительствами, и они не должны быть списаны.мы узнаем, как мы должны вести себя в обществе посредством обучения семей и учителей, помощь друзей и т.д. иногда мы можем нарушить правила без какого — либо наказания.но если мы постоянно нарушают правила, и другие члены общества могут критиковать нас, или отказываются иметь с нами ничего общего.4.правила социальной инструкции являются более формальный характер, чем в таможню, с санкции для тех, кто их нарушать.спортивные клубы, например, часто подробные правила для своих членов.но если член нарушает правила и отказывается принять любое наказание, клуб может попросить его покинуть клуб.5.однако, когда правительства принимать законы для своих граждан, они используют систему судов и полиции по обеспечению соблюдения этих законов.конечно, в тех случаях, когда закон не применяется в отношении кого — то — например, когда дети совершают преступления, или в тех случаях, когда некоторые люди могут скрыться от правосудия, используя свои деньги или влияние.

Читайте также:

Сочинение на тему я монтажник сам понимаешь

Сочинение про синонимы 4 класс мини

Сочинение по картине по русскому языку 7 класс ладыженская

Горький на дне сочинение преступление и наказание

Молодость у всякого проходит а любовь другое дело сочинение

Источник

закон, право, юриспруденция, суд, заповеди, законный, правовой, юридический

существительное ↓

- закон; правопорядок

- право; правоведение

- профессия юриста

doctor of /in/ law — доктор юридических наук
the faculty of law — юридический факультет
to study /to read/ law, to go to the law — изучать право
to follow /to go in for/ the law — избрать профессию юриста
to practise law — заниматься адвокатской практикой; быть юристом

- суд; судебный процесс

to go to law — обращаться в суд; начинать судебный процесс; подавать жалобу, иск
to go to law against smb. — подать на кого-л. в суд
to be at law with smb. — судиться с кем-л.; вести процесс
to take /to have/ the law of smb. — привлечь кого-л. к суду
I’ll have the law on you! — Я на тебя в суд подам!
to take the law into one’s own hands — расправиться с кем-л. без суда

- закон (природы, научный); закономерность

- принятый, установленный обычай

laws of honour — кодекс /закон/ чести

- (the law) амер. разг. представитель закона; полицейский; сотрудник ФБР и т. п.

Open the door, it’s the law! — Откройте дверь! Полиция!
The long arm of the law finally got him. — В конце концов полиция его схватила.

- правила

The first law of kung fu is to defend yourself. — Первое правило кунг-фу: защищайся.
the laws of golf [of tennis, of cricket] — правила игры в гольф [в теннис, в крикет]

- спорт. фора; гандикап; преимущество, предоставляемое противнику в состязании
- разг. поблажка; отсрочка

глагол

- разг. обращаться в суд
- диал., разг. навязывать свою волю

прилагательное ↓

- законный; юридический; правовой; имеющий отношение к закону и праву

- судебный; имеющий отношение к суду

law sitting — время сессий судов; месяцы, когда суды заседают
law costs /charges, expenses/ — судебные издержки
law reports — сборники судебных решений

Мои примеры

Словосочетания

Примеры с переводом

She’s studying law in London.

Она изучает право в Лондоне.

It is against the law to smoke in an elevator.

По закону запрещено курить в лифте.

There is no law against fishing.

Ловить рыбу законом не запрещено.

Necessity / need knows no law.

Нужда не знает закона. (посл.)

I think she may be in trouble with the law.

Я думаю, у неё могут быть проблемы с законом.

In Sweden it is against the law to hit a child.

В Швеции бить детей запрещено законом.

The laws against drug use were very severe.

Законы против употребления наркотиков были очень суровыми.

ещё 18 примеров свернуть

Возможные однокоренные слова

lawful — законный, правомерный
lawless — беззаконный, непокорный, необузданный, неправомерный
outlaw — вне закона, разбойник, изгой, незаконный
inlaw — восстановить в правах, о том, вернуть ссыльному политические и
unlaw — правонарушение, денежный штраф

Формы слова

noun
ед. ч.(singular): law
мн. ч.(plural): laws

Источник

In this article, Simran Sabharwal discusses what is law.

Not for nothing, the great Greek thinker, Aristotle, had said, “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice, he is the worst” and similarly, Thomas Hobbes had pronounced, “It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law.” Various philosophers have given their unique definition for law. Even every layman has his own definition. Everyone has their own interpretation of what law is and what law ought to be. The primary purpose of this article is to interpret the meaning of law and how the law evolved with the times of today.

Law plays different roles in the lives of everyone. A single word cannot define law. There cannot be a word which can equate law. One can draw analogy to understand law. Law is like a temple which is designed so that men and women can live in his or her palace of peace. Law is love, which is inarticulate in nature. Both have the power to regulate human emotions. Law is as complex as love. An analogy can be drawn between law and sea. Both law and sea are vast and as a drop adds to the quantity of water in the ocean, in the same way every judgement adds itself to many precedents. Also, there is no life without water, there is no life without law.

Law is not a mistress, law is a spouse. It stays with you, wherever you go. Law is an invisible force that controls every human being. Law connects us like Life and Water (LAW). All these statements gives the idea that law is universal.

Salmond defined law as, “ the law may be defined as body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice.” Though Salmond did not define justice yet his definition can be considered as the most workable definition.
According to John Chipman Gray, “the Law of the State or of any organised body of men is composed of the rules which the courts, that is judicial organ of the body lays down for the determination of legal rights and duties.” His definition also received criticism that his definition focused neither on nature of law nor on statute laws.

Nature and Scope of Laws

What is the nature of law or what is the essence of law is a long disputed question. Various Greek thinkers have already raised several questions on the topic and the answer is still not clear. That does not mean that there is no clear answer but there is not a complete answer which can be claimed to be absolute. Also, this question has preoccupied Jurisprudence and philosophy of law.

There are two kinds of law. One is based on justice, the other one is based on control. The latter part is in use today. “Might is right” principle is followed. It is retribution instead of restoration which should be followed.

Justice is a set of universal principles which guide people to analyse what is right and what is wrong. It disregards the culture and society one lives in. Fiat justitia ruat caelum is a Latin phrase which means, “Let justice be done, though the sky falls.”
Social control refers to mechanisms which regulate individual and group behaviour. E.A. Ross, the famous sociologist believed that it is not the laws that guide human behaviour but it is the belief systems that guide what individuals do. Social control mechanisms can be adopted as laws and norms which control and define human behaviour.

Law serves many purposes and functions. It helps to maintain peace. Violence should not be allowed in the society and thus, peace is maintained by the orders or we can say the laws of the government. Law also helps to establish standards. It also protects rights of the people. Without laws, people will not even get the basic rights which they deserve.

Also, law can be called as a good career option. From Mahatma Gandhi to Barack Obama, all are associated with the career of law. It acted as a stepping stone to their success. There are various career options in law like litigation, civil services, professors or one can go in the corporate sector.

Jurisprudential Schools of Law

Jurisprudence refers to the study of law. It can also be called as a science which deals with creation, exploration and enforcement of laws. The word is derived from juris prudential which means knowledge of the law. If one understands the theories and philosophies then one can get a better understanding of law. Legal thoughts can be viewed from the angle of different schools of jurisprudence which are given below.

Positivist School

According to Positivist school, law is the command of the sovereign. It says that decisions can be made logically from predetermined cases and ignoring the moral aspects. It is also called Analytical school.
This school says there isn’t a connection between law and morality. For example, Judges may not want the landlord to evict the elderly old lady from the land on which the rent is overdue. Though the laws may say that if the rent is not paid, the defaulter has to vacate the land. Positivist law school says that judges should decide cases in accordance to law and keeping aside their morals.
It believes that integrity of law is maintained through neutral judiciary. Law is what is laid down. What ought to be the law factor should be ignored.
Also, basis of law should be maximum happiness of maximum people.

Historical School

“Law is the product of social consciousness.” This social consciousness started even before sovereignty. It started from the very beginning of the society. Sir Henry Maine, Edmund Burke are the renowned jurists.
The Historical school is based on Volksgeist theory. It says law is based on the general will of the people. It grows as the nation grows. Also, a law which is suitable for one set of people may be useless for the other which gives us the point that there is no universal application of law. The laws are based upon the local customs, local behaviour and the current thought processes of the society. All these affect law and makes it a peaceful society.
The theory focuses a lot on the past. However, it mentions that laws must change with time. Laws must be what the society demands.

Natural School

Natural law is a philosophy that focuses on the laws of the nature. It says that there are some laws which all humans deserve as they are inherent in society. It opposes the positivist theory. A lot of emphasis is placed on morals and ethics of the society.
It is based on the reasons they make for deciding between good and evil.
Immanuel Kant, Hegel and Grotius are eminent jurists. They regarded law neither as command of the sovereign nor a product of consciousness rather based on rationality and reasonableness.
The main aim of Philosophical school or Natural school is to elevate humans from evil and raise them to do good.
Even in Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights of US Constitution, Thomas Jefferson has cited Natural Law theory calling it “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Sociological School

This school emerged as a synthesis of many jurist’s thoughts. This school of thought lay emphasis on functional part of law rather than the abstract part of law.
They regarded law as a social institution. They believed that laws are not created by state. Laws come from society. The laws are not sanctioned by the state but by the awareness on the part of people.
These laws establish an interconnection between society and laws. Both Historical and Philosophical schools caused a hindrance to social and legal reforms, as a result Sociological school was formed.
This school is the only school of jurisprudence which has a definite program which the other schools do not have. They placed a lot of emphasis on the concept of justice.

Realism School

This school of law emphasises a lot on what courts may do rather than the abstract ideas. Law exists as a matter of reality.
Allen observed that “fermentation is necessary in legal chemistry for without it the liquor of” the law becomes sour and stale. This takes into account the customary practices and circumstances for providing with a new law. The theory can be understood with descriptive way or prescriptive way or both.
In this it is believed that law is a body of government for the administration of justice. Like Positivist theory, this also sees law as will of the state but it is done through administration of justice.

Comparative School

Professor Kecton considers, “the development of Comparative Jurisprudence is the development of two or more systems of law.” However, the term has one meaning.
As historical school is concerned with time, this school is concerned about space. It collects and examines rules that are prevalent and the man who agree and disagree with the system and tries to find a system which is natural. Natural system will be the system what all men wanted to have but due to different laws couldn’t.
Comparative Jurisprudence does a comparative analysis and aids Historical as well as an Analytical School of Law.

Evolution of Law

Christianity and Law

Many centuries ago, it was believed that according to Christianity, God and Old Testaments created the law. Law was a set of rules written by God. People believed in Divine power. Also, it was believed that only if the laws are considered to be sacred then it will be followed.
Christians placed a lot of emphasis on morals. They believed that if the foundations of law are weak, then society will easily revise them according to their needs. The laws will become crooked according to man’s selfish needs.
As Christians, it was believed that the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent loving God is the world’s Lawgiver (Psalm 127:1). He provides Himself as an absolute basis for law. The Christian system of law did not change according to the whims and remained static.
Christianity did not neglect human rights. It ensured certain human rights that are written in the Bible. The Bible has certain instructions specified and He commands us to follow them. The Bible tells us what God believes to be good and what He wants from us: “to do justify, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8).
It was believed that one can hoodwink man’s laws but no one can escape from God’s punishment.
This theory led to diverse views. The people who believed in God were questioned by others. People questioned them because there was no evidence of God coming to earth and formulating the laws.
As a result, the definition changed over time. Later people started believing more in themselves than in the supreme commander. The meaning of law became closer to humans. The definition shifted its emphasis from God to lawmakers.

Sovereignty and Law

There was a time when people believed in command of the sovereign. Various Political philosophers have their own controversial statements related to sovereignty. It was regarded as absolute. No power is above superior.
Another feature is, that it was considered to be permanent. It did not end with the death of the king, rather the eldest son of the king became the next ruler, the principle of primogeniture.
Now, this poses a question what if the new king is inefficient? No one had the right to remove the king.
Starting with Austin’s theory which meant that sovereignty is the command given by superior to inferior. So, whatever the King proclaimed can be considered as law and should not face any revolt. Divisibility of power was not allowed. The ultimate power rested with the king and he was the one who imposed all the laws on the society.
If there was only one person who made all the laws, is he competent enough to frame laws for all the sectors of the society? The laws made by King could not be questioned. Whatever the king said, prevailed.
So, what if a particular sector of society is unhappy with the existing law? They had no right to question the king. Thus, Austin’s theory focused on supremacy. A few lines from a poem which can elaborate on his theory-

“Laws are

Framed by us.

We are framed by someone else,

Who is above any law.”

However, Hans Kelsen believed in the idea to end sovereignty. He gave his new definition.
He believed that there was no need for the word sovereignty to understand the meaning of law and to locate the applications of legal norms. He believed that legal norms are not valid because they are given by sovereign or compatible with moral laws. He discarded the theory that sovereignty is the ultimate source of law.
It is believed that where there is sovereignty there is no law and where there is law, there is no sovereignty.

Therefore, times changed and people realised that whatever King ordered should not be proclaimed as law. Rather, they should have the freedom to choose their ruler or decide whom they want to be ruled by. So, sovereignty part was disregarded by time.

Modern time and Law

Law in modern time is dynamic. Law is what the judges say. Law evolved from religious books to Kings proclamation to what it is today.
Law in the modern times is influenced by time and places. A crime in one place may be an ordinary act of another. Thus, nothing is wrong or right, it is now the law of the state which governs the act. It is customs, practices and habits that become law.
Different culture punishes different things, which means that different rules guide different laws of the land. The punishment for a crime varies from one country to the other.
For instance, punishment for negligent driving, witch branding, adultery is different at different places. Though main aim of the present laws is to provide justice to the one in need. Also, no one is condemned unheard which leads to the idea that justice is given after hearing both the sides.
In present times, it is what the judges say. In one of the beautiful poems, law is described as,

“Law cannot bind me,

Law cannot judge me,

I can change the law

As per my convenience.”

Law is defined as, “a set of special legal rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of the state, relationship between the organs of the state and relationship or conducts subjects towards each other.” It is a body of rules made by the legislature.
In fact, laws are the rules that bind human together. Without laws, man can become worse than an animal. Law is a necessity for the nation to prosper. The rules are made by man, enforced by man, on the man.
Law can only be enforced by the majority. When there is general support, law enforces itself. A body is elected which frames the law for everyone. People have to be governed by law to avoid illegal and immoral acts.
Even in ancient times there were certain customs which acted as laws. In other words, it can be said that law can be called as the supreme force which acts as a catalyst between society and illegal practices.
Also, every single person has his own definition for the three-letter word. Even the judges that make law, give judgements according to time.
For instance, Section 377 which was a crime before was ruled out in September 2018 and was legalised in the nation. Although there are still many nations where gay marriages are criminalised. In other words, we can say that, what is a law today can be criminalised tomorrow. This is what makes the nature of law dynamic.

Are Laws Necessary?

Now, thinking upon the point: why do we need law? Is it even required?

“We talk while we are mobile, some of us drink like fish from the wine lake and smoke like bush fire and literally are buried under butter mountain while our compatriots are hungry, we are always in haste and have no time for others.” These lines do summarise the ideas of need of law.
Law acts as a medicine to cure the sufferer. We all must be aware that a condition of lawlessness is neither desirable for the nation, nor for the individual.
Civilisation has developed the humans, not only in emotions but also in technology. So, at every new turn, we require a law to help us move forward in society. When politicians prove to be a dark horse, then the law is required.
Lord Dylan said,” to live outside the law, you must be honest.” The words within the quotes are absolutely right because if everyone is honest then there will be no need for law. There would have been peace all around but we all know that this is not the reality. We require more and more laws because we are progressing at a very fast pace though inside we are regressing.
The current generation requires law the most. Though laws are filled with flaws i.e. Every law has some deficiency but law is what limits and coerces the majority. If it is necessary, it is required for survival and sustenance.

So, just imagine a day without law. A hell lot of problems will arise if there is not any law. We humans are filled with self-interest and our selfishness will override every single thing on this planet. There will be misery all around. There will be war of all against all. Thus, law acts as a guard of all the negative human emotions of life. Law are guidelines which are required to be followed.

Also, law and ethics go together. In some ways, ethics governs law. Most of the judgements are given keeping in mind the ethical values of the society. Law and ethics, both help in providing the solutions, like what they should do and what they should not in a certain situation.
Even thinkers were aware of the importance of law. Greek thinkers believed that the end of the state is the good life, both for individuals and society so for that law is needed, which is backed by the common interest of all the people.

What is the main aim of Law?

We now know that laws are necessary but what is the aim of law. How will they benefit the society?

Law acts as an instrument to provide justice. Various theorists harped upon the main aspect of justice. They equated law with justice.
But why is law required to ensure justice? In order to answer the question Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan says, “To this war of every man, against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. When there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice.” So, it can be concluded that in order to have justice, law is needed.
This now poses another question that What if law proves to be inefficient and no justice is provided? What will be the situation if law turns out to be biased?
- The answer to the above question is: For every judgement passed by the court there are amendments which ensures that law moves with time. It changes with the changing demands of the society. Also, take the infamous Nirbhaya case which shook the nation. There were no such case laws related to juvenile offenders. After the happening, a panel was formed which recommended tougher punishments for sexual violence. In other words, if a law proves to be of not so use, amendments are made in it. Same is the case of section 377, when it was proved that the law needs to be changed, the Supreme Court gave a green signal and decriminalised the 150+ year old practice.
Now, why is the decision-making authority with the Supreme court and not with the people? What if the people get together in kins for mutual protest?
- This is not allowed as man is considered to be selfish. He will think of his self-interests and not of the society. He will think only of himself, which will aggravate the situation. This will later lead to agitation and violence which will eventually result in mob lynching as not all the sector’s needs will be taken up.
Thus, there is a need for a body to make laws for everyone keeping aside the biases. Also, Supreme court of India, in July 2018, passed a judgement ensuring that justice is the law’s business and not mob’s. Furthermore, the Indian constitution guarantees justice for all.

Conclusion

Law is an instrument of positive social change and also as a means of changing existing social arrangements. It acts as a catalyst change agent.
Law has influenced literature. Shakespeare has mentioned law more than any other profession in his plays. That is to say, Law is so important that it has its impact even in literature.
Lawyers can look into literature as a rich source of certain forms of knowledge. Law is what everyone of us look forward to.
Law may prove to be deterrent at times, but its main purpose is to provide justice. Law means a strong order in the society. All this can be provided by government. All things considered, law is the most crucial part of the state. It is the supreme power of the state commanding what is right and what is wrong.
Although law has one syllable and has only three letters yet the word can be understood in various ways.

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Источник