When is de jure and de facto law used?
138055
de jure law would mean something is an actual law.  de facto means it is the way stuff works "in fact" but there is no formal law.  This is analagous to the difference between in theory and in practice.\n\nExample:\nde jure: Racial segregation cannot exist\nde facto: Racial segregation exists.
603561
Outdated laws and political correctness have entirely and absolutely nothing to do with each other!\n\nOutdated laws exist because they are rarely if ever utilised and the body of law is so vast that they are probably long forgotten... \n\nWhen a situation arises that they may come into play and are now seen to be unjust then the government will usually legislate to amend and/or overrule the prior law in that area...\n\nLaw is an evolving process that is in a state of continual change... it just takes time to get to all the changes that need to occur and in law that time is often measures in hundreds of years not one or two...
772702
The term originates from it's Constitutional interpretation.  Strict Constructionism.\n\nThe idea is that the feelings of the majority at a given time, make bad, unreliable law.  \n\nThe rule of law (stare decisis) governs, and should not easily be changed for public opinion.\n \nThe role of government is limited to providing a strong military, regulating interstate commerce, and punishing crime.\n\nRights and responsibilities go hand in hand.\n\nThe belief that the individual does best with the least governmental controls.\n\nA belief that fewer governmental regulations spur economic progress.
673612
Not a clue on the legal reasoning bit, I'm afraid. Stare decisis means 'stand by your decision' meaning that decisions of previous judges have to be followed if it is in a lower court (there are also some other exceptions.) The UK statutes have to 'match up' to EU legislation and the Human Rights Act. I think that it all links in with not going against the EU bit, but I'm not too sure, I'm afraid. Hope that helps you a bit! :)
91597
The power to use force \n\nWhenever they are carrying out their "ordinary" function of preserving the peace, the RUC are not entitled to use force. They must act with restraint, resisting pressure rather than applying 'it. Even when controlling crowds or patrolling a procession or parade they must not apply force in an active manner. If they do so, they can be sued for assault. \n\nHowever, if the police are preventing crime or effecting a lawful arrest, they can use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances" (s.3(1) of Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967). The burden of proving that the force used was reasonable lies on the police. For example, in Wasson v Chief Constable of the RUC (1987), since the RUC could not prove that their version of how Mr Wasson came to be injured by a plastic bullet was more likely to be true than Mr Wasson's version, they were held liable to pay compensation. But it seems that, even in the absence of any proof that the police knew that the person they fired at was committing an offence (such as driving a stolen car), a judge may still regard the use of real bullets as reasonable force whenever someone drives through a vehicle checkpoint. In Magill v Ministry of Defence (1988) it was held that a soldier's act in firing at a 15-year-old driver was reasonable use of force in the prevention of crime. A police officer would probably enjoy a similar immunity in such circumstances, though much would depend on the particular features of each case. \n\nIn relation to police powers expressly conferred by the PACE (NI) Order 1989, article 88 says that the police "may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power". The term "reasonable" suggests that the force used must be in proportion to the gain the police hope to achieve through exercising the power. The term "necessary" implies that other means of exercising the power must be attempted first. This would seem to impose a stricter test than that contained in the 1967 Act, but as yet no court has ruled on how the two provisions inter-relate.
1133206
There are several sources of law, statutes being one source of law.  Given the limitations of the english language, courts are sometimes called upon to interpret various statutes.  There are rules of statutory construction which  courts utilize in doing so.  The general theory is that courts should construe statutes to be constitutional, if possible. Second, the courts try to determine the intent of the legislature in interpreting the statute.  Courts will look to other court decisions interpreting the same or similar statutes, legislative intent, amendments to a statute, and even dictionaries and other sources.
364110
If I understand your question, a functionalist approach to the law states that it is better to interpret the laws so that they work efficiently, even if they don't quite allow such an interpretation. A formalist approach would require you to interpret the laws as they are written and not try to inject any subjectivity into it. In other words, the judge is stuck with the law as the legislature has written it.
235420
Erm... it makes a legal rule.\n\nNot actually sure what you're asking - more info may help.
933042
Not sure what you mean but perhaps; the law is divided into criminal and civil law and also into statute and case law.\n\nThe division into criminal and civil law is fairly obvious and very broadly speaking civil law may be regarded as being concerned with contracts made between people and or companies or states.\n\nStatute law are the laws passed by government a system we inherited from the Romans. Case law is derived from the old Anglo-Saxon system of justice is based on precedence established in previous cases it is also concerned with interpretation of statute law.
906209
There are different def. of age in different laws.  For example, in Texas, anyone 17 years old is an adult for normal crimes.  However, the Family code defines a juv is anyone under 18.  So does the education and government code.  The Health and  Safety code defines a minor as anyone under 21 (that's the one that deals with alcohol.) \nLike it was said before, each state and federal law is different.
840949
Nope.\n\nAs long as the law is one designed for the benefit of the community, it is allowed. The only exception are laws which violation some specific guarantee or limits imposed by the constitution.
148697
Different laws for different states.
100671
ex post facto is a descriptive term for an explanation or a law that is made up after an event and then applied to it: “The chairman's description of his plan sounds like an ex post facto attempt to justify an impulsive action.” Ex post facto is Latin for “from after the deed.”\n\nEx post facto design\nThe ex post facto design is a variation of the "after-only with control group" experimental design. The chief difference is that both the experimental and control groups are selected after the experimental variable is introduced rather than before. This approach eliminates the possibility that participants will be influenced by an awareness that they are being tested. \n\nWhere exposure to the experimental variable can be determined objectively, on an ex post facto basis, the bias introduced by self-selection can be eliminated and the design, in essence, becomes identical to the "after-only with control group" design. In these circumstances, the ex post facto design is an improvement upon the "after-only with control group" design since the experimental variable would have its impact in a natural situation. Suppose, for example, that government has been using radio to communicate thy benefits of giving vitamin supplements to children under two years of age and that these are available in tablet form, free-of-charge, in local clinics. Ownership, and access, to a radio can be established objectively.
1174115
If you mean "where do laws come from", the answer is philosophy. Most of our laws (the ones that make sense, anyway), are derived from great philosophers.  The greeks gave us trial by jury.  "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was given to us partly by John Locke (originally "life, liberty, and property).  Take a look at deontological ethics, and you'll find some familiar concepts.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
983362
It is the old english common-law term for an "Arrest Warrant". It is still commonly used is some states.
456455
A law that punsishes someone for an act that was not a crime at the time is an ex post facto law. \nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm\n\nThe court order to tell someone why he is being held or release him/her is a writ of habeas corpus, aka, the "great writ." \nhttp://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
527090
coz the law was only made after that day