Introduction to Law and Legal Profession Philippines Pdf

Each of the different law schools has a particular conception of what a legal system is or what it should be. Natural law theorists emphasize the rights and duties of government and the governed. Positive law presupposes that law is only the command of a sovereign, the political power to which the governed will obey. Recent writings in the various schools of legal thought emphasize long-standing models of government by the rich over others (the CLS school) and by men over women (ecofeminist legal theory). Law is a word that means different things at different times. Black`s Law Dictionary says that law is “a set of rules of action or conduct prescribed by the supervisory authority and having binding legal force. What is followed and must be followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law. Black`s Law Dictionary, 6. Auflage, s.v. “Gesetz.” Beyond the court`s decision, when you look at the court`s reasoning, you are most likely to understand which facts were most important to the court and which theories (law schools) each trial or appellate judge believes.

Because judges don`t always agree on the original principles (i.e., they join different law schools), there are many divided opinions in appellate judgments and in every term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Natural law school has greatly influenced American legal thought. For example, the idea that certain rights are “inalienable” (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and in the writings of John Locke) is consistent with this legal view. Individuals may have “God-given” or “natural” rights that the government cannot legitimately take away from them. A government that has only with the consent of the governed is a natural consequence from this point of view. ConstitutionsThe 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. The positive legal school of legal thought would recognize the command of the legislator as legitimate; Questions about the morality or immorality of the law would not be important.

On the other hand, the natural law school of legal thought would refuse to recognize the legitimacy of laws that are not in conformity with natural, universal or divine law. If a legislature issued an order that violated natural law, a citizen would have a moral right to demonstrate civil disobedience. For example, by refusing to give up her seat to a white person, Rosa Parks believed she was refusing to obey an unjust law. On the other hand, procedural laws are the rules of courts and administrative authorities. They tell us what to do if there is a fundamental problem. For example, if you drive fifty-three miles per hour in a forty-mile-per-hour zone on Main Street on a Saturday night and receive a ticket, you have violated a substantial legal standard (the specified speed limit). How the court decides and what is decided is a matter of procedural law. Laws control judicial decisions or the common law, but are subject to (and are controlled by) constitutional law – decrees, regulations or court decisions – in a manner precise enough to know what the law says. For example, we could look at the published speed limits on most U.S. highways and conclude that the “right” or “right” speed does not exceed fifty-five miles per hour. Or we could look a little deeper and find out how the written law is usually enforced.

In this way, we could conclude that sixty-one miles per hour are generally authorized by most state troops, but that sometimes someone receives a ticket for fifty-seven miles per hour within a fifty-five miles per hour zone. Both approaches are empirical, but not strictly scientific. The first approach, which examines exactly what the rule itself says, is sometimes called the “positivist” school of legal thought. The second approach, based on the social context and actual behaviour of key law enforcement actors, is similar to the “legal realist” school of thought (see Section 1.2.3 “Other Schools of Legal Thought”). There are also legal systems that differ considerably from the common law and civil law systems. Other communist and socialist legal systems (e.g., Cuba and North Korea) are based on assumptions very different from those of English common law or European civil law. Islamic and other religion-based legal systems bring different values and assumptions to social and business relations. No matter how wrong a person`s actions may seem to you, the only injustices you can correct in court are those that may be related to one or more pleas in a complaint is a legal basis on which a claim is based. The legal basis may be a constitutional law, a law, a regulation or a prior judicial decision that sets a precedent to be followed. Positive law is replete with case law, treaties, laws, regulations and constitutional provisions that can be transformed into causes of action. If you have an agreement with Harold Hill that he will buy seventy-six paper clips from you and not pay for them after delivery, you`ll probably feel treated unfairly, but a court will only respond positively to your complaint if you can prove that his conduct gives you a cause of action based on some part of your state`s contract law.

This case would give you a cause of action under the laws of most states; To the extent that Harold Hill had no legal excuse recognized by the contract law of the state concerned – such as his lack of legal competence, the fact that he was under eighteen years of age, that he was drunk at the time of the agreement, or his claim that the instruments were trumpets rather than trombones, or that they were delivered too late to be useful to him – You might expect compensation for his breach of your agreement with him.