Discuss the topic"courts are not legislature yet they make law"?
463631
The Court doesn't make law.  The Court interprets laws.  It may interpret a section of the Constitution to run counter to an act of Congress, and thereby invaidate the act of Congress.  In that sense, they can destroy a law.  Of course, since all they are really doing is preserving a superceding law, it is problematic to suggest they have done something wrong.\n\nThe Constitution is the Law, and the Court decides if something being done by one of the other branches violates that law.
954225
Indeed, very dangerous. Judges are intended to interpret the law but have been using their power to create the law. That is very bad. Impeachment or recall are the only real options for activist judges.
946763
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution....\n\nThat is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle. \n\nThere are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision? \n\nOf course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. \n\nThe right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is: \n\nIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.\n\nThere is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional. \n\nSimilarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there: \n\nCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...\n\nThe point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here. \n\nCan anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.
768859
because law is made by groups of people that at times think.
763369
Nothing is inevitable. You never know which side a Justice will come down on. I would like to believe they weigh the arguments and then place them in a context of what is allowed by the Constitution. Activist judges ruling by judicial fiat from the bench are not good for anyone, no matter which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
327017
Just because a law doesn't make sense is no reason to knowingly break it. \n\nShould it be illegal? In my personal opinion, probably not. Is it illegal? Apparently yes. Did you know it was illegal at the time you broke it? Sounds like it.\n\nIf you don't like the law, change the law. Remember, just about every civil rights leader in the 1960s who stood up in defiance of bad laws were also prosecuted (successfully) under them. It's not about whether the laws are good or not. It's about whether, as a country, we are going to respect the rule of law.
764595
I'd say that would be one you need to address to the courts and not the general populace.  The courts may have regs for what counts and what doesn't that are different than what we think would count.
777693
Federal law is created by Congress (statutory) and federal courts (federal common law). State law is created by each state legislature (statutory) and state courts (state common law).\n\nUnder Article VI of the Constitution (Supremacy Clause), federal law (statutory or court-made) preempts state law.\n\nThe answer to your underlying question comes from the interaction of the 10th Amendment with Article I of the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States [federal govt] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."\n\nBasically, the federal government is one of limited enumerated powers. Unless the federal government is authorized to pass laws in a certain area, they cannot. Only the states can. \n\nThat's why most criminal laws, most family laws, most general behavioral laws -- all are state laws. Unless an area involves one of the limited federal topics (interstate commerce, the military, the post office, copyrights, etc -- see Article I Section 8), then the federal govt has no authority to pass the laws.\n\nAnd because each state is sovereign within their own jurisdiction, each can pass whatever laws they want, as long as those state laws do not conflict with federal laws or the federal Constitution. That's why laws vary by state.
773777
There is nothing called 'Honorable Law.' The judges are addressed as Honorable Court for judicial decorum.
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.
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
294245
Under the Westminster model of government that the UK, and I think I'm correct in saying Australia also works under, Parliament is supreme.  It can make or unmake any law that it pleases and is not bound by any law.  This is to do with the doctrine of the Seperation of Powers, where each branch othe state is seperate (in the US the distinctions are more clear).  So basically the courts apply the law and parliament makes it, common law is made by the judges which confuses matters.  The basis position is Common law is judge made law, which is inferior to statute law.  When there is a conflict statute law prevails.  Judges cannot declare law created by parliament invalid so therefore any statute law, regardless of the sphere of influence it is in has precendence over common law.\n\nHope this helps!
680238
It means that judges make law where no law ever existed.  Best example I can think of is "Roe v. Wade".
1180966
I can't imagine that any state legislature would create that type of law, but then again, their are some pretty strange laws out there.  I would guess that the answer is no.
334650
It looks like you may need to stage a demonstration about the widespread lack of knowledge of laws governing Public Demos in Florida.\n\nIs that a sentence? It's not an answer!
1176099
I can rant about this all night if you want.\n\nThe simple, central fallacy is that writing laws will solve problems.  Commit a wrongdoing = go to jail.  In jail for a felony?  Get rehabilitation.  Good time and behavior = release.\n\nIt's a system designed by politics to punish threats to society.  We don't know what we're doing on the subject of rehabilitation, we're guessing.  ANOTHER set of laws deal with probation and sentencing length and release dates.\n\nSo the system as a whole is a sloppy political fingerpainting.  Ugh.  Nobody thinks they have honestly been rehabilitated and represent no threat whatsoever upon release.  kubuki theatre.
434262
Immigration law reform is long overdue.  I'm more interested in what the actual law will look like after it gets out of committee (or if it can even get out of committee).  The biggest problem with sweeping reform legislation is that it rarely works and usually backfires in some form or other (See the recent bankruptcy reform legislation.)  I wish I had a little more faith in the political process to get stuff right.