Law is a set of rules that are created and are
enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a
science and as the art of justice. State-enforced laws can be made by a group
legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in
statutes; by the executive through
decrees and
regulations; or established by judges through
precedent, usually in
common law jurisdictions. Private individuals may create legally binding
contracts, including arbitration agreements that adopt
alternative ways of resolving disputes to standard court litigation. The creation of laws themselves may be influenced by a
constitution, written or tacit, and the
rights encoded therein. The law shapes
politics,
economics,
history and
society in various ways and also serves as a mediator of relations between people.
Legal systems vary between
jurisdictions, with their differences analysed in
comparative law. In
civil law jurisdictions, a legislature or other central body
codifies and consolidates the law. In
common law systems, judges may make
binding case law through
precedent, although on occasion this may be overturned by a higher court or the legislature. Historically,
religious law has influenced secular matters and is, as of the 21st century, still in use in some religious communities.
Sharia law based on
Islamic principles is used as the primary legal system in several countries, including
Iran and
Saudi Arabia.
Roman Catholic authorities were adamantly opposed, criticising what they regarded as the weakening of the meaning of
marriage, despite support from 66% of the population. Other associations expressed concern over the possibility of lesbian and gay couples adopting children. After its approval, the
conservativePeople's Party challenged the law in the
Constitutional Court.
Approximately 4,500 same-sex couples married in Spain during the first year of the law. Shortly after the law was passed, questions arose about the
legal status of marriage to non-Spaniards whose country did not permit same-sex marriage. A decision from the
Justice Ministry stated that the country's same-sex marriage law allows a
Spanish citizen to marry a non-Spaniard regardless of whether that person's
homeland recognizes the union. At least one partner must be a Spanish citizen in order to marry, although two non-Spaniards may marry if they both have legal
residence in Spain. (Full article...)
After serving as secretary to several more commissions, he was made Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Office in 1915. Schuster served in this position for 29 years under ten different Lord Chancellors, and with the contacts obtained thanks to his long tenure and his work outside the Office he became "one of the most influential Permanent Secretaries of the 20th century". His influence over decisions within the Lord Chancellor's Office and greater Civil Service led to criticism and suspicions that he was a "power behind the throne", which culminated in a verbal attack by the
Lord Chief JusticeLord Hewart in 1934 during a session of the
House of Lords. Schuster retired in 1944 and was elevated to the
peerage. Despite being officially retired he continued to work in government circles, such as with the
Allied Commission for Austria and by using his seat in the House of Lords as a way to directly criticise legislation. (Full article...)
The Act of Independence of Lithuania (
Lithuanian: Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės Aktas) or the Act of February 16th, also the Lithuanian Resolution on Independence (
Lithuanian: Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės Nutarimas), was signed by the
Council of Lithuania on February 16, 1918, proclaiming the restoration of an independent State of
Lithuania, governed by
democratic principles, with
Vilnius as its capital. The Act was signed by all
twenty representatives of the Council, which was chaired by
Jonas Basanavičius. The Act of February 16 was the result of a series of resolutions on the issue, including one issued by the
Vilnius Conference and the Act of January 8. The path to the Act was long and complex because the
German Empire exerted pressure on the Council to form an alliance. The Council had to carefully maneuver between the Germans, whose troops were present in Lithuania, and the demands of the Lithuanian people.
The immediate effects of the announcement of Lithuania's re-establishment of independence were limited. Publication of the Act was prohibited by the German authorities, and the text was distributed and printed illegally. The work of the Council was hindered, and Germans remained in control over Lithuania. The situation changed only when Germany lost
World War I in the fall of 1918. In November 1918 the first Cabinet of Lithuania was formed, and the Council of Lithuania gained control over the territory of Lithuania. Independent Lithuania, although it would soon be battling the
Wars of Independence, became a reality.
The laconic Act is the legal basis for the existence of modern Lithuania, both during the
interwar period and since 1990. The Act formulated the basic constitutional principles that were and still are followed by all
Constitutions of Lithuania. The Act itself was a key element in the foundation of Lithuania's
re-establishment of independence in 1990. Lithuania, breaking away from the
Soviet Union, stressed that it was simply re-establishing the independent state that existed between the world wars and that the Act never lost its legal power. (Full article...)
... that, in the cases of Klayman v. Obama and ACLU v. Clapper, US district courts issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of bulk data collection by the US government?
... that in 2011, Nitehawk Cinema successfully lobbied to overturn a
Prohibition-era liquor law that prevented movie theaters in New York from serving alcohol?
Case law, also used interchangeably with
common law, is a
law that is based on
precedents, that is the
judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on
constitutions,
statutes, or
regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a
legal case that have been resolved by
courts or similar
tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions. (Full article...)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a
landmark decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent
domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a
U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important
precedent in its interpretation of the
Citizenship Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in
San Francisco in 1873, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under the
Chinese Exclusion Act, a law banning virtually all Chinese immigration and prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming
naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the circumstances of his birth and could not be limited in its effect by an act of
Congress.
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in
English common law. The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country". (Full article...)
... that thanks to the advocate general's opinion, one is likely to know the outcome of a court case before the
European Court of Justice before it even starts drafting the ruling?
... that Ward v. Flood was the legal basis for racially segregated education in California?
... that red-boxing by American politicians is used to coordinate with
Super PACs, an activity that the
Campaign Legal Center called the "primary mechanism for corruption of federal campaigns in 2022"?
... that after Joseph S. Bartley was sentenced to twenty years in prison for embezzlement, he tried to have himself declared
legally dead?
... that according to
Ruth Marcus, the facts of Michael H. v. Gerald D. "more closely resembled a soap opera synopsis than a typical Supreme Court case"?
Image 14The
Constitution of India is the longest written constitution for a country, containing 444 articles, 12 schedules, numerous amendments and 117,369 words (from Legal history)
This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by
JL-Bot (
talk·contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is
tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject Law}}) or
categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See
WP:RECOG for configuration options.
Law is a set of rules that are created and are
enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a
science and as the art of justice. State-enforced laws can be made by a group
legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in
statutes; by the executive through
decrees and
regulations; or established by judges through
precedent, usually in
common law jurisdictions. Private individuals may create legally binding
contracts, including arbitration agreements that adopt
alternative ways of resolving disputes to standard court litigation. The creation of laws themselves may be influenced by a
constitution, written or tacit, and the
rights encoded therein. The law shapes
politics,
economics,
history and
society in various ways and also serves as a mediator of relations between people.
Legal systems vary between
jurisdictions, with their differences analysed in
comparative law. In
civil law jurisdictions, a legislature or other central body
codifies and consolidates the law. In
common law systems, judges may make
binding case law through
precedent, although on occasion this may be overturned by a higher court or the legislature. Historically,
religious law has influenced secular matters and is, as of the 21st century, still in use in some religious communities.
Sharia law based on
Islamic principles is used as the primary legal system in several countries, including
Iran and
Saudi Arabia.
Roman Catholic authorities were adamantly opposed, criticising what they regarded as the weakening of the meaning of
marriage, despite support from 66% of the population. Other associations expressed concern over the possibility of lesbian and gay couples adopting children. After its approval, the
conservativePeople's Party challenged the law in the
Constitutional Court.
Approximately 4,500 same-sex couples married in Spain during the first year of the law. Shortly after the law was passed, questions arose about the
legal status of marriage to non-Spaniards whose country did not permit same-sex marriage. A decision from the
Justice Ministry stated that the country's same-sex marriage law allows a
Spanish citizen to marry a non-Spaniard regardless of whether that person's
homeland recognizes the union. At least one partner must be a Spanish citizen in order to marry, although two non-Spaniards may marry if they both have legal
residence in Spain. (Full article...)
After serving as secretary to several more commissions, he was made Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Office in 1915. Schuster served in this position for 29 years under ten different Lord Chancellors, and with the contacts obtained thanks to his long tenure and his work outside the Office he became "one of the most influential Permanent Secretaries of the 20th century". His influence over decisions within the Lord Chancellor's Office and greater Civil Service led to criticism and suspicions that he was a "power behind the throne", which culminated in a verbal attack by the
Lord Chief JusticeLord Hewart in 1934 during a session of the
House of Lords. Schuster retired in 1944 and was elevated to the
peerage. Despite being officially retired he continued to work in government circles, such as with the
Allied Commission for Austria and by using his seat in the House of Lords as a way to directly criticise legislation. (Full article...)
The Act of Independence of Lithuania (
Lithuanian: Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės Aktas) or the Act of February 16th, also the Lithuanian Resolution on Independence (
Lithuanian: Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės Nutarimas), was signed by the
Council of Lithuania on February 16, 1918, proclaiming the restoration of an independent State of
Lithuania, governed by
democratic principles, with
Vilnius as its capital. The Act was signed by all
twenty representatives of the Council, which was chaired by
Jonas Basanavičius. The Act of February 16 was the result of a series of resolutions on the issue, including one issued by the
Vilnius Conference and the Act of January 8. The path to the Act was long and complex because the
German Empire exerted pressure on the Council to form an alliance. The Council had to carefully maneuver between the Germans, whose troops were present in Lithuania, and the demands of the Lithuanian people.
The immediate effects of the announcement of Lithuania's re-establishment of independence were limited. Publication of the Act was prohibited by the German authorities, and the text was distributed and printed illegally. The work of the Council was hindered, and Germans remained in control over Lithuania. The situation changed only when Germany lost
World War I in the fall of 1918. In November 1918 the first Cabinet of Lithuania was formed, and the Council of Lithuania gained control over the territory of Lithuania. Independent Lithuania, although it would soon be battling the
Wars of Independence, became a reality.
The laconic Act is the legal basis for the existence of modern Lithuania, both during the
interwar period and since 1990. The Act formulated the basic constitutional principles that were and still are followed by all
Constitutions of Lithuania. The Act itself was a key element in the foundation of Lithuania's
re-establishment of independence in 1990. Lithuania, breaking away from the
Soviet Union, stressed that it was simply re-establishing the independent state that existed between the world wars and that the Act never lost its legal power. (Full article...)
... that, in the cases of Klayman v. Obama and ACLU v. Clapper, US district courts issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of bulk data collection by the US government?
... that in 2011, Nitehawk Cinema successfully lobbied to overturn a
Prohibition-era liquor law that prevented movie theaters in New York from serving alcohol?
Case law, also used interchangeably with
common law, is a
law that is based on
precedents, that is the
judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on
constitutions,
statutes, or
regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a
legal case that have been resolved by
courts or similar
tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions. (Full article...)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a
landmark decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent
domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a
U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important
precedent in its interpretation of the
Citizenship Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in
San Francisco in 1873, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under the
Chinese Exclusion Act, a law banning virtually all Chinese immigration and prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming
naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the circumstances of his birth and could not be limited in its effect by an act of
Congress.
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in
English common law. The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country". (Full article...)
... that thanks to the advocate general's opinion, one is likely to know the outcome of a court case before the
European Court of Justice before it even starts drafting the ruling?
... that Ward v. Flood was the legal basis for racially segregated education in California?
... that red-boxing by American politicians is used to coordinate with
Super PACs, an activity that the
Campaign Legal Center called the "primary mechanism for corruption of federal campaigns in 2022"?
... that after Joseph S. Bartley was sentenced to twenty years in prison for embezzlement, he tried to have himself declared
legally dead?
... that according to
Ruth Marcus, the facts of Michael H. v. Gerald D. "more closely resembled a soap opera synopsis than a typical Supreme Court case"?
Image 14The
Constitution of India is the longest written constitution for a country, containing 444 articles, 12 schedules, numerous amendments and 117,369 words (from Legal history)
This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by
JL-Bot (
talk·contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is
tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject Law}}) or
categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See
WP:RECOG for configuration options.
.JPG)
_by_English_School.png)
.jpg)
.png)
_Aristide_-_Francesco_Hayez_-_gallerie_Accademia_Venice.jpg)
