There are different ideas about what is right and what should be right. Laws and legal systems differ around the world. The legal system in the United States is based on the U.S. Constitution, which itself is inspired by natural law theory and the idea that people have rights that cannot be taken away by the government, but can only be protected by the government. The various functions of the law are done well or badly, depending on the nation-state you are looking at. Some are very good at maintaining order, while others are better at allowing civil and political liberties. Social and political movements within each nation greatly influence the nature and quality of the legal system within that nation. But despite this great diversity, it is important to first emphasize the separation between religious and secular legal systems. Everyone has very different views on the law, in terms of source, scope, sanctions and function.

The source of religious law is the Godhead, who makes the laws through the prophets. However, secular law is man-made. In a religious legal system, disputes are usually settled by an official of that religion, so that the same person is both judge and priest. In a secular system, on the other hand, the function of judge is distinct and is often reinforced by guarantees of judicial independence. 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.) An old proverb of the law says that the law does not deal with trivialities or unimportant matters (Latin de minimis non curat lex). All the injustices you experience in life will not be a reason to take legal action.

If you got up for a Saturday night date and feel embarrassed or humiliated, you can`t get anything back in court in the U.S. because there`s no cause of action (no basis in substantive law) you can use in your claim. If you are engaged and your future spouse is exempt from the marriage ceremony, some states provide a legal basis for legal action. The « violation of the promise of marriage » is recognized in several states, but most states have abolished this cause of action either by court order or by law. Whether a runaway bride or groom justifies a valid cause of action in court depends on whether the state`s courts recognize and still enforce that disappearing cause of action. Jurists, on the other hand, would say that we cannot know with real certainty what the « natural » right is or the « universal » right. When we study law, we can learn more effectively simply by looking at what the written law says, or by examining how it has been applied. In response, natural law thinkers would argue that if we care about justice, every law and legal system must be held accountable to a higher standard, however difficult that may be to define. JR Swanegan & Ellen S. Podgor, Overview of U.S. Law, 2nd ed. (Reserves KF 385.

O93 2019) – provides a preliminary explanation of seventeen topics typically covered by U.S. law schools, as well as a chapter comparing the U.S. legal system to a civil code system. Johns, Margaret Z. and Rex R. Perschbacher. The United States Legal System: An Introduction, 4th Edition (KF385. J64 2016) – presents legal education, the legal profession, the legal system and the main sources of law. Hegland, Kenney F. Einführung in das Studium und die Praxis des Rechts in einer Nussschshell, 7th edition (Reserves KF273. H4 2017) – brief overview of case analysis and legal arguments based on simplified false cases; Includes advice on the study and structure of the Faculty of Law. As a general rule, there are few generalizations that can be made between different constitutions.

First, constitutions seek to regulate the division of powers, functions and duties among various agencies and government officials, and to define the relationship between them and the public. Second, no constitution, no matter how good, can protect a political system from effective usurpation. Third, those in power in many countries are more or less completely ignorant of the constitution. Fourth, even when constitutions do, none is complete: each operates within a matrix of compromises, customary laws or jurisprudence. Fifth, most begin by identifying (at least on paper) the constituent authority (as « the people ») and often invoke the deity (i.e., Canada, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Pakistan, Switzerland). Sixth, as a rule, they separate the legislative, executive and judicial organs of the State.