Quote:
Originally Posted by $5 submissions
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. |
"What's the difference between an act, a statute and a law?
There's no cut and dried answer, but
a good way to think about it is this:"
http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/guides/leg.phtml?faq=1
Those in the field of law of course want you to "think" that's the difference. But the reality is a statute is public policy enacted by and for a corporation. You can look at it in the same way as if you were employed by a company and that company has rules. In order to stay employed with that company you must follow those rules or be fired and/or reprimanded. It is corporate, law of the sea, brought onto the land and your body is the vessel. Created originally for ships doing commerce on the sea's. This is also how they are able to blur the lines between corporations and man allowing for such things as corporations and man having equal rights such as campaign donations. But it is also used so certain individuals can hide behind a corporation to steal and kill at will and no one is ever held responsible. Sure the corporation might get a small fine but those directing the stealing and killing continue on. Maybe just under another NAME. Whereas the man would meet very different consequences. Corporate laws = legal (statutes), law of the land pertaining to man = lawful (civil laws).