405:
concept. Needless to say, 'consent of the governed' is a very well-established concept of democracy and at its most basic it is recognised by democratic elections. There is dispute about representation and the extent to which elections, etc. truly amount to representation. See the concept of an 'elected dictatorship', but I don't think that there is any serious scholarship which suggests that these criticisms serve to completely invalidate the rule of law. Furthermore, I don't think I need to explain why the notion that each individual should need to consent to be governed by the law before statutes take effect on them personally is utterly absurd. The use of the word 'contract' seems to misunderstand
Rosseau's theory of a social contract, which is an academic model and crucially NOT an actual, legally enforceable or disputable contract.
288:
constitutions are entrenched (they require a more difficult procedure for enactment or ammendment than ordinary statutes), they deal with fundamental matters of the organization of the organs of state power, and constitutional courts review ordinary statutes against them and strike down those which they find to contradict the constitution. Thirdly, a "constitution" is not necessarily democratic--dictatorships have had constitutions, and theoretically at least a dictatorship could be entirely constitutional--and a "statute" does not necessarily issue from a monarch. So basically, in "latin systems" the difference is more or less identical to in common law ones. (It is true that there are some differences, but they are not fundamental like the author of the above proposes.) --
296:
least some cases in the US, legislation can be passed without approval of the executive--Congress can override a
Presidental veto. And who exactly is "the highest executive in the government"? In Australia, legislation must be signed by the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen--theoretically speaking, the Governor-General is not the highest executive, the Queen is--and practically speaking, since he is basically just a figurehead, he is not the highest executive either (the Prime Minister is, and the Prime Minister cannot stop legislation he opposes, except by using his incomplete control over the members of his party in Parliament). --
31:
186:
165:
85:
64:
95:
196:
308:
techniques? How can one man with such a small voice fight against the influence of such a monster as the influential power of mass media? Martyrdom? ' WE the people ' has now become ' I the person ' as a result of the conditioning process brought on by the new age morals of the american public. If the people lead the leaders will follow, however if the people can not put aside their petty differences for the good of a greater cause, it will never happen.
22:
328:
contrast, Formal as an understanding was a truth engine devised by Plato who developed a higher thought process involving the establishment of "Best
Principled Statements." Example: Socrates asked his student, "Dear Plato, what is understanding?" Plato in answering thought to himself, "Okay, what is formal understanding on this side and what is informal legal understanding on that side?"
354:
This seems to make no sense at all (as well as being hopelessly confused) in terms of explaining what a
Statute is (it seems to apply equally to anything supposedly having force of law such as an appellate court decision in a common law country), and so it belongs in theories of why laws legitimately
426:
There is some confusion and inaccuracies in the lead. One thing is there is "If the bill survives the legislative committee process and is approved by both houses of the legislature,...". This indirectly points to the US (or states) and an exception of course would be
Nebraska that has a unicameral
349:
It is important to realise that a statute in and of itself is not a law de jure but merely de facto. It is a legislated rule of a society which has been given the force of law, by consent of the governed. There is speculation as to whether consent of the governed is given by the democratic process,
327:
The present definition of statute on the front page begins by mentioning something formal concerning the law. The concept of what is legal and what is formal are two different understandings. Legal as an understanding is what the bully says it is which is inherited by long standing tradition. In
282:
and a statute is only academic, usually merely culturally depending on the historical moment or on the form of state in which they are produced: a constitution is better referred to a democracy, while a statute is usually produce by a monach, as a form of concession. But, as said, the difference is
382:
I deleted this section, because it makes no sense whatsoever and has no citation to back up what it says. If there is debate in the legal community about whether statute requires individual consent (and I've never seen anything suggesting that), then please link to a source instead of just making
311:
1. Sign your posts. 2. Why are you writing this? for a start the use of we isn't correct unless you represent muliple persons writing as 'we' the people on this talk page aren't exclusivly
Usonion. You seen to be ranting about nothing in particular. Democracy is about rule for the benefit of the
295:
Also, I'm a bit concerned by the phrase "ratified by the highest executive in the government". There is no need inherently for a statute to be ratified by the executive. Sure, some countries do this (e.g. UK, Australia, US), but I don't think that forms part of the definition of a statute. In at
404:
Just to add for sake of consistency - the language and notion used in this paragraph is similar, if not identical, to many tax protestor conspiracy theories and one which is somewhat prevalent on the internet at the moment based around the notion of a 'Freeman on the Land' being a legally valid
287:
Sorry to be so critical, but this is absolute nonsense. Firstly, in
English we say "Civil law system", not "latin system". Secondly, there is a real difference in these countries between constitutions and statutes, and it is very similar to the difference in many common law countries -- namely,
574:
I found the case study on the autonomous communities of Spain, highlighted in the "Autonomy statute" section, to be important to covering underrepresented topics and helpful to further understanding of the term, however there are no sources cited. Does anyone know where this information can be
307:
What if one person, or a group of people do not agree with a written statute? Dispute it? What if that still doesn't work? Revolt? How can we (in
America) revolt, when the mass majority are stuck in the comfortability of repetitive conditioning beaten into their minds through televised media
548:"Commission Regulation (EU) No 543/2013 of 14 June 2013 on submission and publication of data in electricity markets and amending Annex~I to Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council"
520:
It would be interesting to know if
European Union regulations also class as statutes. For instance, European Commission (2013) which established the ENTSO-E transparency platform. With best wishes.
618:
623:
35:
608:
312:
majority, you have no right to dispute said statute unless your group represents the majority. A conclusive answer to your 'question' however would be to move to another country.(
569:
394:
302:
367:
337:
252:
441:
363:
584:
147:
613:
350:
or whether it is required in each individual case—such as by contracting with courts or police officers, whether directly or indirectly.
321:
648:
603:
529:
515:
242:
510:
653:
643:
633:
137:
598:
390:
218:
547:
638:
628:
412:
333:
398:
371:
209:
170:
420:
112:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
44:
375:
525:
463:
If it's going to be an article about all meanings, the distinction should be made as clear as possible.
436:
329:
108:
69:
217:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
495:
481:
457:
343:
21:
580:
521:
416:
50:
408:
386:
359:
8:
576:
506:
432:
317:
201:
592:
475:
451:
279:
502:
428:
313:
480:
statute of institution, established by international treaty - refers to
195:
185:
164:
491:
100:
84:
63:
94:
297:
289:
214:
619:
Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences
487:
471:
283:
very hard to be precisely determined, apart from etymology.
269:
624:
Start-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
113:
609:
Knowledge vital articles in Society and social sciences
539:
486:
statute of government body, established by government
278:
In latin systems, the practical difference between a
450:
instance of law (a document passed by legislature):
213:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
191:
90:
545:
355:bind individuals and not here. Delete it? - cgcc
570:Citing Sources for the "Autonomy Statute" section
590:
456:a set of rules of an organization or a company:
303:Civil Disobedience. On Revolutionary Measures.
466:There are other slightly different meanings:
19:
442:Statute vs law vs articles of association
591:
552:Official Journal of the European Union
446:The term statute has 2 main meanings.
427:form (since 1934) of state congress.
546:European Commission (15 June 2013).
207:This article is within the scope of
106:This article is within the scope of
15:
470:statute of municipality: municipal
116:and the subjects encompassed by it.
49:It is of interest to the following
13:
614:Start-Class level-4 vital articles
14:
665:
516:Are EU regulations also statutes?
649:Mid-importance politics articles
604:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
194:
184:
163:
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
247:This article has been rated as
142:This article has been rated as
227:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics
1:
654:WikiProject Politics articles
644:Start-Class politics articles
376:11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
230:Template:WikiProject Politics
221:and see a list of open tasks.
511:10:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
421:17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
399:18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
338:15:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
7:
634:Top-importance law articles
10:
670:
599:Start-Class vital articles
530:07:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
253:project's importance scale
148:project's importance scale
585:00:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
246:
179:
141:
122:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
78:
57:
639:WikiProject Law articles
629:Start-Class law articles
437:20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
322:00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
125:Template:WikiProject Law
496:articles of association
482:articles of association
458:articles of association
340:Uncle Emanuel Watkins
330:Uncle Emanuel Watkins
36:level-4 vital article
210:WikiProject Politics
45:content assessment
522:RobbieIanMorrison
411:comment added by
389:comment added by
379:
362:comment added by
267:
266:
263:
262:
259:
258:
233:politics articles
158:
157:
154:
153:
661:
563:
562:
560:
559:
543:
423:
401:
378:
356:
235:
234:
231:
228:
225:
204:
199:
198:
188:
181:
180:
175:
167:
160:
159:
130:
129:
126:
123:
120:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
58:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
669:
668:
664:
663:
662:
660:
659:
658:
589:
588:
572:
567:
566:
557:
555:
544:
540:
518:
444:
406:
384:
357:
346:
344:Spurious points
305:
274:Someone wrote:
272:
232:
229:
226:
223:
222:
202:Politics portal
200:
193:
173:
127:
124:
121:
118:
117:
109:WikiProject Law
99:
92:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
667:
657:
656:
651:
646:
641:
636:
631:
626:
621:
616:
611:
606:
601:
571:
568:
565:
564:
537:
533:
517:
514:
499:
498:
484:
478:
461:
460:
454:
443:
440:
352:
351:
345:
342:
304:
301:
293:
285:
284:
271:
268:
265:
264:
261:
260:
257:
256:
249:Mid-importance
245:
239:
238:
236:
219:the discussion
206:
205:
189:
177:
176:
174:Mid‑importance
168:
156:
155:
152:
151:
144:Top-importance
140:
134:
133:
131:
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
73:Top‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
666:
655:
652:
650:
647:
645:
642:
640:
637:
635:
632:
630:
627:
625:
622:
620:
617:
615:
612:
610:
607:
605:
602:
600:
597:
596:
594:
587:
586:
582:
578:
554:. L 163: 1–12
553:
549:
542:
538:
536:
532:
531:
527:
523:
513:
512:
508:
504:
497:
493:
489:
485:
483:
479:
477:
476:statutory law
473:
469:
468:
467:
464:
459:
455:
453:
452:Statutory law
449:
448:
447:
439:
438:
434:
430:
424:
422:
418:
414:
410:
402:
400:
396:
392:
391:86.179.94.129
388:
380:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
348:
347:
341:
339:
335:
331:
325:
323:
319:
315:
309:
300:
299:
292:
291:
281:
277:
276:
275:
254:
250:
244:
241:
240:
237:
220:
216:
212:
211:
203:
197:
192:
190:
187:
183:
182:
178:
172:
169:
166:
162:
161:
149:
145:
139:
136:
135:
132:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
60:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
577:Turtlegirl33
573:
556:. Retrieved
551:
541:
534:
519:
500:
494:- refers to
474:- refers to
465:
462:
445:
425:
403:
383:things up.
381:
353:
326:
310:
306:
294:
286:
280:constitution
273:
248:
208:
143:
128:law articles
107:
51:WikiProjects
34:
413:194.80.32.8
407:—Preceding
385:—Preceding
358:—Preceding
114:legal field
41:Start-class
593:Categories
575:verified?
558:2018-08-02
535:References
492:regulation
101:Law portal
39:is rated
409:unsigned
387:unsigned
372:contribs
364:Cgcc1980
360:unsigned
270:Untitled
224:Politics
215:politics
171:Politics
251:on the
146:on the
503:Vanuan
488:decree
472:by-law
429:Otr500
314:Morcus
47:scale.
28:This
581:talk
526:talk
507:talk
433:talk
417:talk
395:talk
368:talk
334:talk
318:talk
490:or
298:SJK
290:SJK
243:Mid
138:Top
119:Law
70:Law
595::
583:)
550:.
528:)
509:)
501:--
435:)
419:)
397:)
374:)
370:•
336:)
324:)
320:)
579:(
561:.
524:(
505:(
431:(
415:(
393:(
366:(
332:(
316:(
255:.
150:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
