INTRODUCTION Archaic Roman law, not unlike early Germanic law developed from law revolving around family units. Thus, all Roman law we know and study today has developed from these primitive laws created out of necessity, governing fields such as familial relationships, succession and property. The concept of obligatio developed from the need for law to govern relations which do not always relate to the family unit, such as performance resulting from a binding agreement in the form of a contract or compensation with regards to a delict. The XII Tables was the first known source of law which regulated the concept of obligatio. The development of this concept in its primitive form from contractus and delictus will be discussed below.
Both the harm principle and legal paternalism are aimed at upholding an individual’s liberties within the law. However, they argue different view points and restrictions. The harm principle is chiefly concerned with upholding an individual’s right to somehow harm oneself, while legal paternalism says the law can interfere to prevent an individual from harming oneself. This is the most obvious distinction between the two philosophies. Dworkin’s argument for legal paternalism, however, uses Mill’s argument against him, and ultimately proves to be the stronger principle to justify law.
However, the law is the law, and when disobeyed whether unjust or just, consequences will be determined “by the code of the law”. However, human rights must be acknowledged when superiors make laws, and if they are not these laws must be revised, removed and/or
Additionally, this type of speech is considered to be “fighting words” and has a high potential to cause “imminent lawless action.” Therefore, section (b) would be considered to be a constitutional law. Associated Laws Both sections of the Breach of Peace – Incitement law are governed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. However, each section also has established case precedence that assists in determining constitutionality. Cases that can be associated with the law are: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968), Cohen v. California (1971), and Virginia v. Black (2003). Further, specifically regarding section (a), Cohen v. California (1971) is extremely important.
There are reasons for this, first is that, internal implementation of international law is always conditioned by a rule of the state’s municipal law. Clearly stating that international law’ internal interpretation is always governed by the municipal constitution. Second is that in national courts, even a monist country, their courts may fail sometimes to execute treaties which are binding under international law. United State law is an example of non-self-executing treaty. While dualist country’s courts, unincorporated treaties are given limited effect on the internal process.
Whatever the sovereign command is law, and law prescribes to do certain things and not to do others. The demand of personal obedience in Austin 's theory means that the span of the life of the legal system determines the period of existence of the laws of the system and hence also of the legal system itself. Austin came out with the solution of "tacit" command for the problem of continuance of old laws. Law is command given by superior to
Another method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Separation of Powers. Separation of Powers is the division of powers into three branches. In Document B it explains that the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch passes them. This evidence explains how the Constitution guards against tyranny because it separates the powers of the government and it makes sure that no branch has more power than the other.
One of the reasons being that, in many cases the command of the public force is entrusted with judges, and to enforce its decisions, the whole power of the state would be used. No one wants to come up against something so much more powerful than him or her. The article also assures us that in every system there is a
Of the many forms of interpretative constitutional theory that exist, Justice Scalia sees himself as a textualist. He states: “Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism… [a] text should be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that if fairly means” (23). Drawing from a quote from Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, Scalia hints at the notion that if the constitution were to explicitly say all of the powers it allowed and the means by “which they may be carried into execution” then it would be tediously long and incomprehensible to the human mind; therefore one should not expect nit-picking detail and afford to the constitution, with regards to its use of words and phrases, an expansive interpretation so long as the language can bear it. In his distinction between strict constructionism and reasonable constructionism (textualism) Scalia references the first amendment’s forbidding of the abridgement of “the freedom of speech”. He
A constitution is a set of fundamental and entrenched rules governing the conduct of an organisation or nation, establishing its concept, character, and structure. It is usually a short document general nature and embodying the aspirations of values of its writers and subjects. (Business Dictionary, 2015). A constitution is the ultimate authority; any action, which contravenes the rules of the constitution, will be both unconstitutional and unlawful. It will also help identify the rights and freedoms of citizens through a bill of rights, which operates both to protect citizens and to restrict the power of the state.