In a nation, law can be used to (1) maintain peace, (2) maintain the status quo, (3) preserve individual rights, (4) protect minorities from majorities, (5) promote social justice, and (6) ensure orderly social change. Some jurisdictions serve these purposes better than others. While a nation ruled by an authoritarian government can keep the peace and maintain the status quo, it can also oppress minorities or political opponents (e.g., Burma, Zimbabwe, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein). Under colonialism, European nations often forced peace in countries whose borders were created somewhat arbitrarily by the same European nations. For several centuries before the twentieth century, empires were built by Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, Holland, France, Germany, Belgium and Italy. In terms of the functions of law, the empire may have kept the peace—largely by force—but it changed the status quo and rarely promoted Indigenous rights or social justice within the colonized nation. The U.S. legal system is adversarial and rests on the premise that a genuine and living dispute, involving parties who have a genuine interest in its outcome, allows for the most vigorous legal debate on issues, and that courts should not have the power to make decisions unless they respond to genuine controversy. Therefore, federal courts are prohibited from issuing “advisory” opinions or opinions that do not relate to an ongoing case or controversy. (These principles are based on Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to “cases and controversies.” Unlike federal courts, some states allow cases that are not based on actual controversies to be brought and therefore do not share the federal court`s bias against expert opinion.) Most of us recognize the importance of the legal system in our society. As members of a community, we have a social obligation to the people around us to create a safe environment for all and to feel safe walking the streets and treating ourselves fairly. While we abide by these laws and rules every day, we are not responsible for enforcing them, whether we choose to break or follow the law depends on each person and enforcement falls into the hands of the criminal justice system.
The U.S. Constitution takes precedence over all conflicting laws and court decisions. For example, if Michigan were to legislate so that students could not speak ill of professors at state-sponsored universities, this bill would be void because it is inconsistent with the state`s First Amendment obligation to protect free speech. Or if Michigan courts allowed a professor to sue a student who said something derogatory but not defamatory about him, the state`s judicial system would not act under the First Amendment. (As discussed in Chapter 7, Introduction to the Law of Tort, freedom of expression has its limits; Defamation was a cause of action when the First Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution, and it was understood that the First Amendment`s rights to freedom of expression did not negate the existing common law.) Although the length of constitutions varies considerably, most details are usually devoted to the legislative and executive branches and the relationship between them. Federal systems, of course, have bicameral legislation. But also many unitary systems, where the House of Commons is directly elected and the House of Lords is composed of those who can represent rural interests (France) or have particular competences (Ireland). In most countries (but not in the United States), the House of Commons can ultimately override the House of Lords. Related to the CLS school, but different, is the ecofeminist school of legal thought. This school emphasizes – and would change – men`s long-standing dominance over women and the rest of the natural world. Ecofeminists would say that the same social mentality that leads to the exploitation of women is the root of male exploitation and the deterioration of the natural environment. They would say that male ownership of land has led to a “culture of domination” in which man is not so much a steward of the existing environment or of those who are “subordinate” to him, but is responsible for making everything he controls economically “productive.” Wives, children, land and animals are considered economic resources, and legal systems (until the nineteenth century) largely granted rights only to men owning land.
Ecofeminists would say that even with the increase in women`s civil and political rights (such as the right to vote) and with the recognition of children`s and animals` rights and some nations` concern for the environment, the legacy of the past for most nations still affirms the primacy of “man” and his domination of nature and women. “Law is the command of a sovereign” represents which school of legal thought? The jury system is a legal system for determining the facts at stake in a dispute. The tax system is a legal system for determining and collecting taxes. The electoral system is a legal system for making democratic decisions. But suppose an employer fired an employee for not committing perjury (lying on the witness stand in a court case); The employer wanted the employee to cover up the company`s criminal or unethical act. Suppose that, as in the previous cases, there are no applicable laws and no employment contract. Courts based on a finding or precedent that “employers may terminate employees for any reason or no reason” could rule against an employee seeking termination compensation because he or she told the truth on the witness stand. Or it could make an exception to the general rule, such as: “Employers can generally fire employees for any reason or no reason without incurring legal liability; However, employers are held legally liable if they terminate an employee who refuses to lie on behalf of the employer in legal proceedings. To what extent is the concept of stare decisis still relevant to the Nigerian legal system today? Now that the concept of a legal system has been expanded, I will now list five legal systems in today`s world. They are: Thank you very much, but I was hoping to learn more about the legal social legal system of constitutions, the founding documents of the legal system of each nation-state. are the basis for other laws of a state or nation and form the legislative, executive and legal framework of the country.
Among the nations of the world, the United States has the oldest constitution still in use. It is difficult to change, which is why there were only seventeen changes after the first ten in 1789; Two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate must pass amendments, and three-quarters of states must approve them. Scotland, Louisiana, Mauritius and Quebec are examples of private law based on older civil and customary rules (not codified in Scotland) that persist in a common law environment. Israel has its own system, in which the former Ottoman and British mandates are now supplanted by a modern system. It does not have a single constitutional document, but much of modern law combines the great legislative simplicity of the main civil codes with the careful transparency of the common law judgment. Most modern legal systems can be described as either common law, civil law, or a mixture of both. The historical law school believes that today`s societies should base their legal decisions on the examples of the past. Precedents would be more important than moral arguments. It should be noted that, from a technical point of view, there are as many legal systems as there are independent sovereign countries. For example, Nigeria has its own legal system, which would have consisted of “any set of laws or legal rules and mechanisms that function in Nigeria as a sovereign and independent African country. On a larger scale, however, sovereign countries are grouped into broader legal system classifications because they share similar basic characteristics.
In the parliamentary system, the head of state differs from the head of government – called prime minister, prime minister (or in Germany federal chancellor). The head of state may be a hereditary monarch or a directly elected president. However, the Prime Minister is not elected directly by the voters, but is appointed from the majority or coalition faction in the Legislative Assembly. The prime minister and other ministers do not have a fixed mandate, but can in principle be forced to resign by a parliamentary vote of no confidence in the government. This is usually compensated by the executive power to dissolve the legislature and call new elections (although there may be some protection against hasty or repeated dissolution). The Prime Minister and ministers dominate in two directions. First of all, although the powers of the head of state seem impressive on paper (summoning the legislative branch, enacting laws, granting pardons, etc.), in practice they are exercised under the direction of the government.