And in principle, work as a professional officer of justice is to protect the good woman or man, and also protect the nation from any lawsuits that reached justice. Being in law enforcement not only as police officers or the justice system, but it could be as anti-terrorism officers and cyber crime. And it works as it related to any justice should be accompanied with a big responsibility.

If we take the best Criminal Justice Schools will allow us to obtain a complete and intensive training. Even more good if you study in Criminal Justice Schools is the best you can learn everything about the law, not just in one area of law. And if you previously alredy have a bachelor’s degree in law then the additional degree will help you to get an increase in jobs and promotions that will make you feel happy. Since achieving a bachelor’s degree can be equated with the promotion of your work.

In fact, if any book suffers from the lack of a subtitle, this is it. A few come to mind off-hand as potential nominees, such as “How the Supreme Court Ruined Everything,” or “The Founders’ Losing Battle with the Judgeocracy.” After reading the book, it is clear that the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court over time have eroded the states’ rights that Jefferson held so dear and accomplished the consolidation of power in the hands of the federal government.

Of course, Gutzman is not positing a vast conspiracy of any sort that designed to take away the liberty of state and local governments to decide their own social laws on contracts and place this power in the hands of the national government. The court, though, from its inception realized that it was designed to be the least powerful branch of the government and various chief justices decided to alter that power balance as much as possible.

After some preliminary battles between the Court and the original intent of the Constitution, Gutzman sees the “imperial judiciary” beginning in earnest with the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall. Gutzman states that Marshall’s chief legacy was the writing of “the defeated Federalist Party’s constitutional views into American constitutional law.” Despite the fact that the people of the United States at the time voted into office politicians who advocated states’ rights and limited power of the federal government, Marshall was the main advocate of using the Court to strengthen the central government and apply the same laws throughout the Union, even overriding state laws.

Marshall’s position was at odds with the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, who saw the growing power of the Supreme Court as a threat to the constitution. Jefferson believed that laws were the social agreements that people agreed to be governed by and judges were to apply the meaning of these agreements as clearly as possible. In contrast, Marshall and various other judges believed in a “natural law” underlying all laws and that the role of a judge was to examine laws in relation to these universal statutes. This, of course, replaced the role of the people in deciding their laws with an aristocratic Philosopher Counsel that would determine the rules that all people should live by.

Most of the book focuses on various Supreme Court decisions on a range of social issues that were being debated at the time. From Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus to slavery and the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the flip-flopping done on the issue of segregation, Gutzman illustrates that the Court has rarely acted in the interest of the people or the states, and instead consolidated power with the federal government. Although some states threatened secession at various points in time, Lincoln eventually stated that secession was an impossibility and the Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states from dissolving the Union.

The book moves through historical decisions one after another, hitting on the irrationality and vagueness of the antitrust laws, the Court’s battle against Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation and FDR’s decision to replace the judges with his own partisan appointees who would follow his policies. It is in the discussions of religion’s role in the government that is the most interesting, however.

Originally, the Constitution was intended to prevent the federal government from institutionalizing a state religion for the entire Union. State religions, however, could have their own religion, and often did. It was not until the twentieth century that Justice Black put up the wall of “separation between church and state,” and denied state or local government’s the right to deal with religion as they wished. This took the power of deciding on the role of religion in a community out of the community itself and installed it firmly with the Supreme Court. The First Amendment, originally intended to limit the power of the federal government, was extended to state and local governments, as well, reversing the intent of the Founders. Gutzman remarks that Christianity was the main target of the Court’s decisions, stating that “any religion is okay, so long as it is not Christianity.”

As well as the victory against religion, the Supreme Court also took on issues of morality, criminal law, and discrimination, as well as the ever-popular-to-discuss Roe v. Wade abortion decision. The decisions rendered by the court served to further transfer the rights of states to govern as they will and place it in the hands of the federal government or the Supreme Court itself. Gutzman sees these decisions as a complete inversion of the original intent of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution itself: “The Court has overturned the right of the people of the states to govern themselves, overturned the Tenth Amendment, and thus overturned the Constitution — and called it the “rule of law.” In fact, this may be Gutzman’s main argument and an adequate summary of the entire work (although too long to be a subtitle).

The book hits on another of additional topics, as well, including the teaching of constitutional law in school, which examines various cases but does not discuss the original intent of the writers of the laws the Supreme Court has decided upon. This leaves law students with a firm understanding of the decisions rendered upon various laws and their applications over time, but no idea if these applications were intended for the subject laws in the first place. Thus, one mistake is piled on top of another, until the original mistake is buried under years of precedent.

Gutzman’s work is an interesting and useful guide to the US Constitution, its original intent, history and its application (and perversion) over time. While the book could easily be quite a bit longer and the issues discussed in more detail, it is quite ideal as an introduction to the history of arguably the most important document to the history of the United States and possibly the best agreement ever made between a government and its people.

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nick_Adama

The law is divided into two main branches. These are – Public Law and Private Law. These two branches can be divided further but the distinction between the branches of private and public law is very small. The branches often overlap and it is only by convention that the branches exist.

The branches of public law are as follows:

1. Criminal Law: deals with crimes. These crimes can range from theft to murder. The laws under this section define the offences, states the rules of arrest, and the possible punishments. In most countries laws are defined by the constitution and the central or federal government. However in some countries like the United States, states have their own laws as well.

2. Constitutional Law: defines the rules and code of conduct for the government and its various departments. It also states the most basic rights of the people. These rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion are guaranteed to all citizens of that country. These rights are upheld by the courts throughout the country.

3. Administrative Law: governs the operations of government agencies. These are the agencies that regulate various aspects of our lives like banking, communications and trade. It also includes social welfare programs, social security and insurance.

4. International Law: This law is meant to make dealings among nations easier. This law is more like protocol and is very hard to enforce.

The branches of private law are as follows:

1. Contract and Commercial Law: These laws deal solely with matters that involve contracts among people. By definition a contract is a legal agreement among persons or people. Contracts are needed in order to carry out daily business. Disputes arising from contracts are dealt with under this section of the law.

2. Tort Law: These laws deal with injuries caused to a person by other individuals or companies. This includes the illegal use of a person’s property such as his or her name.

3. Property Law: As the heading suggests this section deals with the ownership and use of property. This property could anything from a building to a car.

4. Inheritance or Succession Law: These deal with the rights of inheritance of property. These laws are different in all countries.

5. Family Law: These govern the legal aspect of the family, such as the rules of adoption, marriage, divorce and child support.

6. Corporate Law: deals with business and stockholders. This branch is often classed together with contract and commercial law as business law.

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Caroll_Giles

Related Post:

The stipulations of corporate law provide that a company has a separate legal identity. A company has its own legal right and legal liabilities that are separate from its members. You may file a legal suit against a company. However, it is not compulsory that the litigation will extend to its owner and shareholders.

Corporate Law: A Good Career Option

A lawyer who specializes in corporate law helps corporate houses with legal processes and corporate dispute resolutions. Further, he helps them in asserting their legal rights and to know their legal liabilities. The industrial boom in India has made corporate law a lucrative career option.

In case you are planning to specialize in corporate law, there are several employment opportunities to consider such as joining a corporate law firm. However, before joining a legal firm, it is essential to confirm about its level of expertise, market reputation, location and size.

Another option that you choose is to commence independent legal practice. Owners of small business enterprises prefer to hire an independent corporate lawyer instead of hiring expensive services of big corporate law firms. Also, you may start your practice by working under an experienced corporate lawyer.

You can also consider joining the legal department of a corporate organization. Several leading corporate organizations hire corporate lawyers for their own legal departments. These firms have there own legal departments to undertake their legal formalities and legal procedures.

However, to pursue a successful career as a corporate lawyer; you should be well versed with company laws, trademark laws, copyright laws, tax and securities laws, and government rules and regulations.

The author, Swapna, is a crazy, fun-loving, intense, moody and liberal thinking Indian mom. She loves writing about books, wines, food, movies, musings on news around the world, and Indian Laws. She has keen interest on the Company Law. She has practiced law for three years in litigation in Kerala, specialized in labor laws during recent LLB course. She also functioned as Commissioner appointed by the Rent Control court to undertake a site investigation on behalf of the court and submitted the report before the aforementioned court.

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Swapna_R_Sanand

Common law refers to the myriad of decisions made by judges and appeals courts. Maxims of Common Law are ‘guiding truths’. Adhering to them helps judges make fairer decisions. They’re ignored in family court determinations since fairness is a wholly secondary issue. This article overviews what these maxims are.

Maxims are absolutely essential to the preservation of rights and fair treatment to all litigants. Maxims:

* represent ‘self-evident’ truth – as mentioned in our Declaration of Independence when it referred to ‘all men’ as being created equal.

* serve to guide judicial determinations in the same way that ‘axioms’ guide the analysis of mathematical determinations

* promotes fair dealing and unbiased justice – a clearly essential issue in the purpose of courts

Courts, primarily established to enforce the principles of common law, are bound by common law rules of equity that should be grounded in the never-changing maxims. This grounding serves to restrain the court’s wanton discretion in equity law determinations.

Examples of Maxims:

Let’s take a look at some examples to see the nature of maxims -as self-evidently fair. Here’s an important one:

*The certainty of a thing arises only from making a thing certain.

This implies that the court should seek clear proof of allegations made against someone and not rule on just the allegations or weakly supported ones. Family court ignores these maxims all the time.

*The safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual.

Laws which supposedly protect the safety of some people at the expense of other people’s rights violate this maxim. A clear example of such a violation is present day domestic restraining order laws which are rampantly and unjustly imposed upon so many fathers.

*Law is unjust where it is uncertain or vague in its meaning.

Laws should be clear so that one knows precisely when he’s breaking such a law. Remember the violation of laws brings consequences on those who violate them. Vague laws are considered unconstitutional. An example of vague standard of law is the ‘best interest of the child’ standard – used to unjustly deny fit fathers custody of their children.

*The Burden of Proof lies on him who asserts the fact -not on him who denies it.

This is based on the fact that you can’t prove a negative. Courts that force people to prove a negative are examples of kangaroo courts. Family courts jail fathers when they can’t prove that they don’t have money to pay!

*No one should be believed except upon his oath.

This simply means that anyone who will give testimony must be sworn in. That way he can be charged with perjury – which is a felony (a serious crime) – if he can be found to be intentionally lying. No ‘swearing in’ means no perjury and no penalty for lying.

*Perjured witnesses should be punished for perjury and for the crimes they falsely accuse against him.

This is the bottom line of enforcing honesty in court testimony. Unfortunately perjury is almost never punished -allowing the degradation of court integrity – so obvious in family court.

*Every home is a castle; though the winds of heaven blow through it, officers of the state cannot enter.

This is from English common law which made a man’s home sacrosanct. It should still be true. It requires officers to have warrants to enter a home. A warrant is permission from a judge based on good cause to enter a home.

*No man should profit by his own wrong or, He who does not have clean hands, cannot benefit from the law

This is self-evident. An extreme case is the child that pleads mercy because he’s an orphan – but only because he murdered his parents.

*He who uses his legal rights harms no one.

But, fathers are routinely punished by seeking their rights in family court.

*No one is punished unless for some wrong act or fault.

But forced into the noncustodial status for doing no wrong would be considered punishment by any reasonable person.

*It’s natural that he who bears the charge of a thing, should receive the profits.

If you have all the obligations for something but none of the benefits, then you are a slave.

Fathers who go to family court observe clear violations of these maxims all the time. Such violations mean that there is a tyranny taking place.

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Shane_Flait