Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court.
(2) The power of the state serves all citizens and can be only applied in cases, under limitations and through uses specified by a law. (3) Every citizen can do anything that is not forbidden by the law, and no one can be forced to do anything that is not required by a law. The same principles are reiterated in the Czech Bill of Rights, Article 2.
In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), [1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), [2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
The exception proves the rule is a phrase that arises from ignorance, though common to good writers. The original word was preuves, which did not mean proves but tests. [4] In this sense, the phrase does not mean that an exception demonstrates a rule to be true or to exist, but that it tests the rule, thereby proving its value.
Sovereign immunity is the original forebear of state immunity based on the classical concept of sovereignty in the sense that a sovereign could not be subjected without his or her approval to the jurisdiction of another.
There is a wide range of legal immunities that may be invoked in the name of the right to rule. In international law, immunities may be created when states assert powers of derogation, as is permitted, for example, from the European Convention on Human Rights "in times of war or other public emergency." Equally familiar examples include the ...
A religious exemption is a legal privilege that exempts members of a certain religion from a law, regulation, or requirement. Religious exemptions are often justified as a protection of religious freedom, and proponents of religious exemptions argue that complying with a law against one's faith is a greater harm than complying against a law that one otherwise disagrees with due to a fear of ...
An unjust law is no law at all (Latin: lex iniusta non est lex) is an expression in support of natural law, acknowledging that authority is not legitimate unless it is good and right. It has become a standard legal maxim around the world. This view is strongly associated with natural law theorists, including John Finnis and Lon Fuller. [1]