Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam
Actually, it would most likely be a statute. Which is different than a law despite popular belief. A jurisdictional difference would be the difference between the law in your jurisdiction and mine or a dispute over jurisdiction.
|
Well, what I meant was
conflict of laws not jurisdictional differences. You're right about that -- there is a distinction. You are right about pointing out that jurisdictional differences means disputes about which state court or which court (fed vs state) would have authority to hear a dispute. Conflict of laws means the difference between the local laws of where the defendant lives and where the plaintiff lives.
Now, regarding statutes and laws. They are the same thing in EFFECT. A statute is the product of legislatures--they pass a law and it gets enforced. A law can be rules created by an executive agency or a "judge made law" (US uses Case law system). Both statutes and laws have to be followed-same effect. See:
http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/guides/leg.phtml?faq=1
The ruling in the news item in my first post in this thread is a judicial interpretation of a statute, judge-made law. It is still the law and is enforceable.
Judges interpret the law. Legislatures write it. Executives (president, governors, etc) execute/implement it.