In diverse functions, law has diverse meanings. In USA, law is defined as any rules or regulations whose breach subjects those breaching it to specific civil liabilities or particular criminal punishments. It is also defined as the set of conduct rules with obligatory legal effect, as well as force, recognized, prescribed, and implemented by controlling authorities, including legislative bodies, the president, judges, administrative agencies or state governors. In USA, law can be defined as rules or regulations formulated by controlling authorities to ensure that minority populations are protected from the interests of the majority populations. In Burma, the applicable law cannot be defined ensuring that minority populations are protected from the interests of the majority populations. That is because the Burmese government uses the applicable law to tyrannize minority populations.
Burmese citizens do not enjoy most of the rights enjoyed by the US citizens. Most Burmese populations do not have the right to conduct their religious activities freely unlike the US citizens. Unlike the US citizens, Burmese citizens have their homes searched arbitrarily by government functionaries, have their communications intercepted and monitored by the government. Burmese citizens are not free to possess properties like telephones, software, and computers unlike the US citizens. Unlike the US citizens, Burmese citizens do not have the right to give speech freely, run free press or organize labor.
Res judicata, or claim preclusion, is a legal doctrine meaning that cases for which courts have given ultimate determinations cannot be the subjects of further litigation. The doctrine is aimed at barring or precluding sustained litigation of cases on similar matters between given parties. If the doctrine was absent, parties to cases concluded by courts would be predisposed to injustice arising from the sustained litigation of the cases.
The legal system would be wasting significant resources processing cases for which final court determinations have already been made. The system would be defined by many contradictions between earlier court judgments and the subsequent ones on the same set of issues. Litigants would engage in the multiplication of judgments, occasioning confusion in the system.
In the present scenario, the Congress would have its way by ensuring that Article 1 of the USA constitution is amended by repealing the Suspension Clause under it. The clause grants every person a right to the habeas corpus writ. As well, the clause disallows the Congress from limiting the right. To amend the article in that manner, a bill proposing the repealing of the clause would be drafted and presented to the Senate along with the Congress.
If at least two thirds of the members of both legislative bodies approve the proposed amendment, the bill would then be committed to all the state legislatures. Each of the state legislatures would be deemed to have approved the proposed amendment if at least two thirds of its members vote for it. If at least 75% of the state legislatures approve the proposed amendment, it would formally become part of the country’s constitution. The amendment would allow for suspected terrorist’s indistinct detention.
There are various grounds why the Congress should allow specialized agencies to make rules on its behalf. First, it lacks the continuity, as well as expertise, needed for the development of specific understanding in particular areas. Second, while it can competently formulate broad laws to guide given agencies, it is incompetent in making highly targeted rules to advance the laws’ purposes. Third, presently, the depth along with breadth of contemporary regulation makes it challenging for the Congress to particularize the details defining contemporary regulatory schemes.
If the Congress does not allow specialized agencies to make rules on its behalf, the rules it makes to govern the operations of the agencies, there may be lack of the development of specific understanding in particular areas. There would be no highly targeted rules to advance the purpose of the laws enacted by the Congress. The industry would not be capable of giving input into the laws governing its operations if rule-making remains the exclusive function of the Congress.
In jurisprudence, sovereignty means a governing entity’s full power, as well as right, to rule over itself devoid of any meddling from external bodies or sources. In recent times, Saudi Arabia has had own sovereignty breached by various foreign nation-states, including German, which insist that the kingdom ought to enhance its observance of human rights. Foreign nation-states have been insisting that the kingdom’s judicial system should function in given ways to ensure that the kingdom’s government has due regard for the rights (Green par.1-15).
For example, foreign nations and their media have been opposed to the prosecution, as well as sentencing, of a Mr. Badawi charged with criticizing the kingdom’s clerics and apostasy (Green par.1-15). Under international law, nation-states, including Saudi Arabia, have sovereignty over their citizens. Theoretically, the sovereignty portends that foreign bodies should not meddle in the political, as well as legal, matters within the jurisdiction of given nation-states.
One cannot argue that he or she was ignorant of the applicable laws when he or she committed a given offense in own defense before a court. That is because in jurisprudence, one is presumed to be knowledgeable about the laws and bound by them in principle. As well, law has a public nature. That means that it ought to be applied to everyone within the jurisdictions define by or for its application.
The ignorance should not be allowed as an excuse since, in all jurisdictions, laws are promulgated, as well rendered, publicly accessible by means, authors, as well as methods, which are recognized and simple. If ignorance is allowed as an excuse, there could be widespread and indiscriminate flouting of the handiwork of legislative bodies. Offenders would be keen to keen to ensure that they remain unaware of the law to evade justice.