Talk:Statute

Someone wrote:

In latin systems, the practical difference between a constitution 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 very hard to be precisely determined, apart from etymology.

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, 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.) -- SJK

---

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 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). -- SJK

Civil Disobedience. On Revolutionary Measures.

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 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.

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 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.(Morcus (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Spurious points

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, or whether it is required in each individual case—such as by contracting with courts or police officers, whether directly or indirectly.

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 bind individuals and not here. Delete it? - cgcc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgcc1980 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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 things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.94.129 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC) DERP DERP DERP