sign in sign up
<<
Home , Statutory law

Statutory

Statutory law or law is written law (as opposed to oral or ) set down by a (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the branch or of the in a typical democracy/republic) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1]

Statutes may originate with national, state or local municipalities. of lower are subordinate to the law of higher.

Codified Law

Main article: (law)

The term codified law refers to statutes that have been organized ("codified") by subject matter; in this narrower sense, some but not all statutes are considered "codified." The entire body of codified statute is referred to as a "code," such as the , the or the Code of . The substantive provisions of the Act could be codified (arranged by subject matter) in one or more titles of the United States Code while the "effective date" provisions—remaining uncodified—would be available by reference to the United States Statutes at Large. Another meaning of "codified law" is a statute that takes the common law in a certain area of the law and puts it in statute or code form. [edit] Private/Particular Law

Another example of statutes that are not typically codified is a "" that may originate as a private bill, a law affecting only one person or a small group of persons. An example was in prior to the passage of the of 1968. It was possible to obtain a legislative divorce in Canada by application to the Canadian Senate, which reviewed and investigated petitions for divorce, which would then be voted upon by the Senate and subsequently made into law. In the United Kingdom Parliament, private bills were used in the nineteenth century to create , grant monopolies and give individuals attention to be more fully considered by the parliament. The government may also seek to have a bill introduced unofficially by a backbencher so as not to create a public scandal; such bills may also be introduced by the loyal opposition — members of the opposition party or parties. Sometimes a private member's bill may also have private bill aspects, in such case the proposed is called a hybrid bill.

In Canon Law, private law is called "particular law. What is statutory law? Acts of Parliament, the legislature of the country - law passed through the house of commons and the house of lords then signed by the monarch - as opposed to the common law, which has developed through the () making the law up as they go along.

An . Sudsidiary Law is Stautory Instruments created by a Minister with the authority of Parliament (that is the Authority contained in an Act) which is the findings of a in similar cases Common Law which is what the "Man on the Clapham bus" thinks it is.

Statutory are not true laws of the country but laws created by corrupt politicians laying seige to the sovereign. They are de-facto laws of a sucession of treasonous de-facto governments that everyone in the UK are signed up for when your parents register your birth and unknowingly sign away your birth rights to the state

Statute law is law based on a statute - or written law, passed by Congress / Parliament or whatever the legislature in your country is called.

The other types of law are (sometimes known as common law), which is law that has developed over time based on court rulings, and regulatory law, which is law based on issued by a government agency.

Statute law is written law passed by legislatures. It is different than -made common law or case law. Statute laws are laws that are formally established to deal with specific situations, and written down in code books.

In common law societies such as England, Canada, and the United States, law is made by two distinct bodies. The legislature makes some laws, and judges make other laws. In the US, this distinction is set forth by separation of powers rules in the .

When the legislature makes a law, it is considered statute law or statutory law. The legislature can make a law on anything that they have the power to govern. In the United States, for example, state legislatures are vested with the power to make laws on and divorce, among other things, while federal legislatures are allowed to make laws on matters governing interstate commerce and on issues such as international relations.

The legislature, unlike the courts, does not have to have a "case" before it to make a law. If the legislature has the authority to make a law about something and it believes that it is a good idea to make a law, it is permitted to do so. Judges, on the other hand, can only make law when a case comes before them and they make law in the form of establishing precedent in that particular case. The procedures for making statute law by the legislature differ depending on how the government is set up in the particular country. In the United States, for example, bills are proposed which are suggested laws. The bills must then be approved by the House and the Senate, and signed by the president in most cases, if the law is to be a federal law.

The legislature sets forth a rule in statute law, and that rule eventually becomes the law after passing through the appropriate process and receiving the required number of votes. Eventually, all of the statutory laws are published and codified in code books. Before this occurs, the statutory laws are still the law, but the laws are published in special addendums to existing code books and/or on government websites.

Statues cannot possibly cover every situation and are not always completely clear on their face. As a result, courts can sometimes be called upon to interpret statute law, and/or statutes may create agencies and vest those agencies with the power to interpret the law. Both courts and state agencies must interpret any statutes by understanding the legislature's intent behind the statute and remaining true to the statute's plain language and purpose. Statutory law is the framework for our society and how we keep maintained. It is good knowledge and understanding to have of our culture and how it functions.

Statutory law is crucial to our survival in the judicial system and whether or not we are protected in our society. It is the basis for much of our law and how our governmental bodies function.

Statutes are defined as laws which are passed by the federal Congress and the various state legislatures. These statutes are the basis for statutory law. The legislature passes statutes which are later put into the federal code of laws or pertinent state code of laws.

Statutory law also includes local ordinances, which is a statute passed by a county government to guard areas not covered by federal or state laws. Statutory law also covers areas which are governed exclusively by statutory law and where case law has no impact.

Corporate law and wills and administration are two areas governed by state statutes while patent, copyright and trademark laws are governed by federal statutes. Consumer law is covered by both state and federal statutes while protecting consumers from deceptive trade practices and any unsafe products and activities that threaten a consumer.

Employment law is mostly governed by federal statutes while each state also has statutes which govern certain areas of employment. Antitrust laws function in much the same way. It is governed by federal statutes while states also have their own relevant statutes.

Statutory law differs from common law which is that law which is announced in court decisions or case laws. Statutory law constituted a small part of our law compared to common law during the early years of the development of our nation. Since that time statutory law has expanded considerably by codifying, or arranging topically, common law doctrines through the enactment of statutes.

Statutory law has also formed out of necessity. Certain businesses need to be regulated as do some activities. The Environmental Protection Agency is an agency which has statutes and regulations to protect the public and enforce laws. Having bodies of law in this manner also gives some uniformity among the states rather than haphazardly relying on varying case law.

A court's interpretation of a statute may also become a precedent that lower courts must follow in issuing their decisions. In this manner, statutory law and common law become one since courts must interpret and apply statutory law. And remember that common law is case law and thus the interpretation of statutes.

So, while statutory law provides the framework by which our judicial system operates, it coexists in a way that allows interpretation even of these laws and forms the basis of common law. Much in the legal system is a gray area in the room there is for interpretation. A statute may appear to stand alone and speak for itself but there will always be someone who will to contest it and make their plight convincing. But statutory law provides the basis for our system and it does have its value in that. Without it, our country would run rampant with gray areas relating to the common law

Difference between common law and statute law? Answer

Statute law refers to the laws that have been passed by the legislature and have been written down and 'codified' for use.

Common law refers to the laws that are more or less "that's the way it has always been done." Common law relies upon the body of history and prior cases to establish what the rules are, one of the reasons study past cases so much. Some states have not codified murder, as the common law definition is more than adequate.

Statute Law VS Common Law!: What would happen if we rid all laws except laws like Don't hurt or interfere with another? Hey there,

Let me first say im not an expert or . Or some student . Or anything to do with the justice system. I haven't been wrongly arrested for some i didn't commit. Or infact any other offense. I have no axe to grind. I'm just curious?

Recently I had a thought: What if we just got rid of all current laws and instead operated under one law.

"Of doing whatever you want. As long as it dosn't hurt or potentuially hurt another individual"

I didn't know it at the time but apparently there is a legal precident for this. As far as I can make out. ( Please correct me if I'm wrong ) All laws that pertain to the common sense idea of: Doing whatever you want as long as it dosn't hurt or potentuially hurt another individua.l Are called "Common Law" For example killing or hurting someone, defrauding someone. Or damaging someones property by writing "I love Mathew Wright" on the bonnet of sombody's car. Are all obvioulsyl bad and should be against the law! All other laws. Such as walking around naked, taking recreational drugs, Riding a horse backwards with no helmet on. Or, any number of other things are currently illegal and are apparently called statute law. My question to you all out there is would one law work? Obvioulsy it would be an umbrella for all other pertiant laws. So let take some examples of what would and would not be illegal in my world of one law for all: 1) Your riding your penny farving on the pavement at 2.00am. There is nobody around for a radius of 5 miles. Currently: Illegal! One law: Legal 2) The crack heads next door are smashed out of their heads in the privacy of their own home. Currently: Illegal! One Law: Legal 3) The same crack heads are off thier heads and crack open a window so their bad techno music can be heard by everyone. Currently illegal. One Law: Still illegal, because they are directly affecting someone elses life. 4) The Couple next door are not feeding childern.Their neglecting their daughter. Currently: Illegal. One law: Still illegal, because they are impacting on anothers life. 4) Boy racer is speeding down the road at 120mph. Currently: Illegal One Law: Still illigal! Because he could potentily lose control and kill or hurt someone.

I think it could work because i don't really think it would change the world alot. But maybe im just being naive. So all you heavyweight thinker out there be careful when you flex your intellectuals muscles in response to me. Obviously it would mean a big legal overhall but thats not what im asking and yes Obvously you would get into tricky grey areas if someone wasn't paying their taxes. But lets face it. The world isn't black and white and nor should the laws that govern it. But by that rational have i just talked myself out of A one law for all?

I really don't kow if this would work i just need some feed back. Be gentle with me, it my first time.

Paul

It's a good idea but open to lots of interpretation I mean who decides at what point your actions are not a threat to someone else? Take running around naked what if it's a man running around near a young girls school.....we have laws that protect you from feeling threatened regardless if there is an actual threat involved.

Rob I have a little legal training, and the main point is that the law should be clear so there is certainty as to what is/is not legal., both so people know in advance what actions are illegal. Also, when on the law needs to be clear in order to assess guilt.

It would be nice if courts could just decide cases depending on whether they consider behaviour to be "right" or "wrong", but many aspects of this decision would be personal opinion. Also, what society considers to be "right" or "wrong" is continually changing, eg. gay relationships. The law is therefore intended to define society's current standing on whether things are right or wrong.

Common law and our system of is the best way for this to operate. Yet we are heading increasingly in the direction of statute, ie. a more european system, whereby laws are created by unelected officials. This does not represent the current views of society as a whole, instead the views of a controlling, undemocratic elite. This is why increased EU involvement in our laws is an extremely bad idea, and we need to reclaim our sovereignty and reject EU statutes taking precedence over our own common law system.

The other problem is that successive governments, particularly the previous Labour administration, decided it was their job to control every aspect of peoples lives, regardless of whether others are directly affected, creating the so-called "nanny state".

High taxation on cigarettes is supposedly to encourage people to quit; Yet it should not be the role of government to offer financial incentives to control someone's behaviour. That is the kind of relationship that should only exist between, eg. parents and children.

I do not elect a representative for them to tell me how to live my life. The government and councils should butt out and just run basic services. Hi Thanks guys for taking the time to reply, and especially for not being cruel regarding what i consider possible naivity on my part. Lots for me to think about. Although regarding points such as: Who decides at what point your actions are not a threat to someone else. Well I guess that would be down to us. Or i'd like to think so. Maybe for once in this country we should all stand up and take a more proactive role in our own governance. Instead of being told what is right and wrong by a very small minority. A minority, who i believe. Have got the whole country's mood wrong. We are all not frightened daily mail readers hiding behind our twitching net curtains. I would like to think the majority of us. Or at least the peaple reading this have common sense. But i take your points completley to heart. Take running around naked for example. Aside from the issue of whether public nakedness is right or wrong. I think we can all agree we don't want it near any schools. I guess a whole new legal system would take a LOT of work. going through every single law judging it validity. But nothing easy is worth having. In the end i think we would have a more just society. Thankyou all for your time Now where did i put that copy of the socialist manifest and my bull horn!

Paul

Really i think I should have started a discussion entitled "how to make a better world" Whoa! It's a slippery scale. One minute your on facebook commenting on:"Iif ugly babies grow up to be ugly" and the next you trying to start a revolution. Wow i think i need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Followed by a revolution

Paul

Revolution attempt reported to MI5, God save the Queen!

Paul LOL Well in that case if your listening Mr MI5. You really should get out more. All that sitting in a darkened bunker. Your obviously not getting enough vitimin D. Have you thought about sunlamps? Maybe moisterising can help with all that conditioned air. I Know!!!!!! What about that food vending machine! Your the goverment! The least they could do is give you a subsidised canteen! Your worth it. And don't get you started on MI6.... Always lording it over you. All that travel to far off exotic loiacations. Bet they don't have a problem with vitimin D deficancy. Bet they have a subsidised canteen in their secret goeverment bunker! Bloody MI6.Whats that? You think someone should do somthing about it? Whats that? You Want a revolution? Ah, i'll be seeing you soon Comrade. Keep rubbing the cream!

Rob

@ paul richardson

"Who decides at what point your actions are not a threat to someone else. "

The answer should be case law, and either a subjective or objective test depending on the type of offence. Most things are decided subjectively, ie. whether it was reasonable to have felt threatened and whether the offender should have known their behaviour would be threatening, depending on what the average man would perceive.

The problem is when the nanny state starts to codify everything, and creates reams of european-style statutes. This makes the test more objective, which can be unfair in many situations.

Paul Mmmm interesting. I think what your saying we just need to exercise a bit more common sense. And not adhere so slavishly to statue's, european or otherwise. That they should be used as a guide and not a rule. A little bit more common sense would go along way to achieving this. At the end of the day what i've learnt from this. Is that there are no end of options to make this country fairer. Its just how to go about implementing them. Obviously discussing them is a good start. And thanks all for cementing what i thought, and thought I thought alone. The question now is what to do next? How to get heard? Shout louder? Join a ? Take to the streets? Mmmmm again don't know. but if you do let me know please? ???????????Les

But this law aready exists and has done since the signing of the , acording to Blacks legal dictonary a statute law applys by of the governed whos the governed? sould a case of satute law be brought against you, the answer is you are and do you give your consent? and not as you might think by admiting your guilt but by admiting your , difficult at first but once you grasp the idea it becomes so simple common law never went away thank God, we need it now more than ever, "As you read this page, ever-increasing control mechanisms are being installed in Great Britain and Lawful Rebellion is the most recent human reaction to this phenomena. Lawful Rebellion has a strong British identity because it’s here we find its people have been uniquely suppressed, divided and robbed through the Vatican’s Canon Law and administration by puppet Stewards of the Crown reigning their incestuous bloodlines across Europe. There has never been a ‘free’ modern civilisation. It was in fact the Romans who came up with the idea to give slaves relative freedom (Citizens), removing the shackles in return for money/credit, taxes and Canon Law (), giving birth to Civilisation as we see it today. As John Harris points out, since the Treaty of Verona in 1213,"

Paul

Thanks. I feel like i'll certainly have a lot of reading to do. It does help that I find all this incredibly interesting. Thank you all

Les I, John James Harris now declare my right under Common Law of England to Withdraw And Withhold all allegiance & obedience to the Person and Crown of Our Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth the Queen, and those who falsely claim to speak &/or to act in Her Name, and by such action, I will remove myself entirely from the authority of those Evil Persons who now seek to abuse & misuse me in the name of Elizabeth, the Queen and in absolute violation of the Common Law of the People to which I belong.

I hereby place on record of all persons that after said 40 days have expired, being the 1st day of May 2008 and the I seek have not been made, by way of the dismissal of the Traitors in the House of Commons, then I John James Harris, will enter into Lawful rebellion under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and therefore will become a Freeman of England within the Freedom of Common Law. AND I GIVE NOTICE that I will return to my full allegiance to the Person; & Imperial Crown of Elizabeth the Queen only when Her Majesty the Queen is released from the bondage that now prevents her from the free exercise of her lawful authority and duty to Uphold the Common Law that is my birthright and to ensure for all time to come that the government of my country is conducted in full accordance with the laws and customs of my people.

May God in His Mercy, Defend the Right & May God Save the Queen from those who now hold her in an Unlawful Captivity. I am not making this up; the courts literally trick us into contracting with them in order for us to slit our own throats by breaching the terms and conditions of the . This is WHY we are asked if we will ‘swear’. We have an option; we are not required to tell the truth unless we swear we will - i.e.: enter into a contract with someone and agree to tell the truth. The sole purpose of that question is to get us to contract. They have NO until we contract. As long as we do not contract with them - and no law can compel anyone to contract - we can remain free. We have the right to contract and .... the right not to contract. All they do is go along with us. They have no commercial energy of their own - they rely on us to give it to them. “All law is commerce; all commerce is contract; no contract - no case”. The above is a subject well worth studying, in my opinon. As Rousseau once said: "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." We are by nature free human beings, but we have been confused in our minds in regard to what we are and the false entity in the form of a legal entity that has been created, without our informed consent. Well, we can now fill in the gaps that our educaton has failed to fill. Here is a bit of study material which may serve as a key to open the prison door!