Statutory law

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a
legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive branch or common law of
the judiciary in a typical democracy/republic) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute
monarchy).[1]
Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutes of lower
jurisdictions are subordinate to the law of higher.

Codified Law
Main article: Codification (law)
The term codified law refers to statutes that have been organized ("codified") by subject matter;
in this narrower sense, some but not all statutes are considered "codified." The entire body of
codified statute is referred to as a "code," such as the United States Code, the Ohio Revised Code
or the Code of Canon Law. The substantive provisions of the Act could be codified (arranged by
subject matter) in one or more titles of the United States Code while the "effective date"
provisionsremaining uncodifiedwould be available by reference to the United States
Statutes at Large. Another meaning of "codified law" is a statute that takes the common law in a
certain area of the law and puts it in statute or code form.

[edit] Private/Particular Law

Another example of statutes that are not typically codified is a "private law" that may originate
as a private bill, a law affecting only one person or a small group of persons. An example was
divorce in Canada prior to the passage of the Divorce Act of 1968. It was possible to obtain a
legislative divorce in Canada by application to the Canadian Senate, which reviewed and
investigated petitions for divorce, which would then be voted upon by the Senate and
subsequently made into law. In the United Kingdom Parliament, private bills were used in the
nineteenth century to create corporations, grant monopolies and give individuals attention to be
more fully considered by the parliament. The government may also seek to have a bill introduced
unofficially by a backbencher so as not to create a public scandal; such bills may also be
introduced by the loyal opposition members of the opposition party or parties. Sometimes a
private member's bill may also have private bill aspects, in such case the proposed legislation is
called a hybrid bill.
In Canon Law, private law is called "particular law.

What is statutory law?

Acts of Parliament, the legislature of the country - law passed through the house of commons
and the house of lords then signed by the monarch - as opposed to the common law, which has
developed through the courts (judges) making the law up as they go along.
An Act of Parliament.
Sudsidiary Law is Stautory Instruments created by a Minister with the authority of
Parliament (that is the Authority contained in an Act)
Precedent which is the findings of a Court in similar cases
Common Law which is what the "Man on the Clapham bus" thinks it is.
Statutory laws are not true laws of the country but laws created by corrupt
politicians laying seige to the sovereign. They are de-facto laws of a sucession of
treasonous de-facto governments that everyone in the UK are signed up for when
your parents register your birth and unknowingly sign away your birth rights to the
state
Statute law is law based on a statute - or written law, passed by Congress /
Parliament or whatever the legislature in your country is called.
The other types of law are case law (sometimes known as common law), which is
law that has developed over time based on court rulings, and regulatory law, which
is law based on regulations issued by a government agency.

Statute law is written law passed by legislatures. It is different than judge-made common law or
case law. Statute laws are laws that are formally established to deal with specific situations, and
written down in code books.
In common law societies such as England, Canada, and the United States, law is made by two
distinct bodies. The legislature makes some laws, and judges make other laws. In the US, this
distinction is set forth by separation of powers rules in the Constitution.
When the legislature makes a law, it is considered statute law or statutory law. The legislature can
make a law on anything that they have the power to govern. In the United States, for example,
state legislatures are vested with the power to make laws on property and divorce, among other
things, while federal legislatures are allowed to make laws on matters governing interstate
commerce and on issues such as international relations.
The legislature, unlike the courts, does not have to have a "case" before it to make a law. If the
legislature has the authority to make a law about something and it believes that it is a good idea to
make a law, it is permitted to do so. Judges, on the other hand, can only make law when a case
comes before them and they make law in the form of establishing precedent in that particular
case.

The procedures for making statute law by the legislature differ depending on how the government
is set up in the particular country. In the United States, for example, bills are proposed which are
suggested laws. The bills must then be approved by the House and the Senate, and signed by the
president in most cases, if the law is to be a federal law.
The legislature sets forth a rule in statute law, and that rule eventually becomes the law after
passing through the appropriate process and receiving the required number of votes. Eventually,
all of the statutory laws are published and codified in code books. Before this occurs, the statutory
laws are still the law, but the laws are published in special addendums to existing code books
and/or on government websites.
Statues cannot possibly cover every situation and are not always completely clear on their face. As
a result, courts can sometimes be called upon to interpret statute law, and/or statutes may create
agencies and vest those agencies with the power to interpret the law. Both courts and state
agencies must interpret any statutes by understanding the legislature's intent behind the statute
and remaining true to the statute's plain language and purpose.

Statutory law is the framework for our society and how we

keep justice maintained. It is good knowledge and
understanding to have of our culture and how it functions.
Statutory law is crucial to our survival in the judicial system and whether or not we are protected
in our society. It is the basis for much of our law and how our governmental bodies function.
Statutes are defined as laws which are passed by the federal Congress and the various state
legislatures. These statutes are the basis for statutory law. The legislature passes statutes which
are later put into the federal code of laws or pertinent state code of laws.
Statutory law also includes local ordinances, which is a statute passed by a county government to
guard areas not covered by federal or state laws. Statutory law also covers areas which are
governed exclusively by statutory law and where case law has no impact.

Corporate law and wills and probate administration are two areas governed by state statutes
while patent, copyright and trademark laws are governed by federal statutes. Consumer law is

covered by both state and federal statutes while protecting consumers from deceptive trade
practices and any unsafe products and activities that threaten a consumer.
Employment law is mostly governed by federal statutes while each state also has statutes which
govern certain areas of employment. Antitrust laws function in much the same way. It is
governed by federal statutes while states also have their own relevant statutes.
Statutory law differs from common law which is that law which is announced in court decisions
or case laws. Statutory law constituted a small part of our law compared to common law during
the early years of the development of our nation. Since that time statutory law has expanded
considerably by codifying, or arranging topically, common law doctrines through the enactment
of statutes.
Statutory law has also formed out of necessity. Certain businesses need to be regulated as do
some activities. The Environmental Protection Agency is an agency which has statutes and
regulations to protect the public and enforce laws. Having bodies of law in this manner also
gives some uniformity among the states rather than haphazardly relying on varying case law.
A court's interpretation of a statute may also become a precedent that lower courts must follow in
issuing their decisions. In this manner, statutory law and common law become one since courts
must interpret and apply statutory law. And remember that common law is case law and thus the
interpretation of statutes.
So, while statutory law provides the framework by which our judicial system operates, it coexists
in a way that allows interpretation even of these laws and forms the basis of common law. Much
in the legal system is a gray area in the room there is for interpretation. A statute may appear to
stand alone and speak for itself but there will always be someone who will attempt to contest it
and make their plight convincing. But statutory law provides the basis for our system and it does
have its value in that. Without it, our country would run rampant with gray areas relating to the
common law

Difference between common law and statute law?

Answer
Statute law refers to the laws that have been passed by the legislature and have been written down
and 'codified' for use.
Common law refers to the laws that are more or less "that's the way it has always been done."
Common law relies upon the body of history and prior cases to establish what the rules are, one of the
reasons lawyers study past cases so much. Some states have not codified murder, as the common law
definition is more than adequate.

Statute Law VS Common Law!: What would

happen if we rid all laws except laws like

Don't hurt or interfere with another?

Hey there,
Let me first say im not an expert or lawyer. Or some student paralegal.
Or anything to do with the justice system. I haven't been wrongly
arrested for some crime i didn't commit. Or infact any other offense. I
have no axe to grind. I'm just curious?
Recently I had a thought: What if we just got rid of all current laws and
instead operated under one law.
"Of doing whatever you want. As long as it dosn't hurt or potentuially hurt
another individual"
I didn't know it at the time but apparently there is a legal precident for
this. As far as I can make out. ( Please correct me if I'm wrong ) All laws
that pertain to the common sense idea of: Doing whatever you want as
long as it dosn't hurt or potentuially hurt another individua.l Are called
"Common Law" For example killing or hurting someone, defrauding
someone. Or damaging someones property by writing "I love Mathew
Wright" on the bonnet of sombody's car. Are all obvioulsyl bad and should
be against the law!
All other laws. Such as walking around naked, taking recreational drugs,
Riding a horse backwards with no helmet on. Or, any number of other
things are currently illegal and are apparently called statute law.
My question to you all out there is would one law work? Obvioulsy it
would be an umbrella for all other pertiant laws. So let take some
examples of what would and would not be illegal in my world of one law
for all:
1) Your riding your penny farving on the pavement at 2.00am. There is
nobody around for a radius of 5 miles. Currently: Illegal! One law: Legal
2) The crack heads next door are smashed out of their heads in the
privacy of their own home. Currently: Illegal! One Law: Legal
3) The same crack heads are off thier heads and crack open a window so
their bad techno music can be heard by everyone. Currently illegal. One
Law: Still illegal, because they are directly affecting someone elses life.
4) The Couple next door are not feeding childern.Their neglecting their
daughter. Currently: Illegal. One law: Still illegal, because they are
impacting on anothers life.
4) Boy racer is speeding down the road at 120mph. Currently: Illegal One
Law: Still illigal! Because he could potentily lose control and kill or hurt
someone.
I think it could work because i don't really think it would change the world

alot. But maybe im just being naive. So all you heavyweight thinker out
there be careful when you flex your intellectuals muscles in response to
me.
Obviously it would mean a big legal overhall but thats not what im asking
and yes Obvously you would get into tricky grey areas if someone wasn't
paying their taxes. But lets face it. The world isn't black and white and
nor should the laws that govern it. But by that rational have i just talked
myself out of A one law for all?
I really don't kow if this would work i just need some feed back.
Be gentle with me, it my first time.
Paul
It's a good idea but open to lots of interpretation I mean who decides at what point
your actions are not a threat to someone else? Take running around
naked what if it's a man running around near a young girls school.....we
have laws that protect you from feeling threatened regardless if there is
an actual threat involved.
Rob

I have a little legal training, and the main point is that the law should be clear so
there is certainty as to what is/is not legal., both so people know in
advance what actions are illegal. Also, when on trial the law needs to be
clear in order to assess guilt.
It would be nice if courts could just decide cases depending on whether
they consider behaviour to be "right" or "wrong", but many aspects of
this decision would be personal opinion. Also, what society considers to
be "right" or "wrong" is continually changing, eg. gay relationships. The
law is therefore intended to define society's current standing on whether
things are right or wrong.
Common law and our system of precedents is the best way for this to
operate. Yet we are heading increasingly in the direction of statute, ie. a
more european system, whereby laws are created by unelected officials.
This does not represent the current views of society as a whole, instead
the views of a controlling, undemocratic elite. This is why increased EU
involvement in our laws is an extremely bad idea, and we need to reclaim
our sovereignty and reject EU statutes taking precedence over our own
common law system.
The other problem is that successive governments, particularly the
previous Labour administration, decided it was their job to control every
aspect of peoples lives, regardless of whether others are directly
affected, creating the so-called "nanny state".
High taxation on cigarettes is supposedly to encourage people to quit; Yet
it should not be the role of government to offer financial incentives to
control someone's behaviour. That is the kind of relationship that should
only exist between, eg. parents and children.
I do not elect a representative for them to tell me how to live my life. The
government and councils should butt out and just run basic services.

Hi
Thanks guys for taking the time to reply, and especially for not being
cruel regarding what i consider possible naivity on my part.
Lots for me to think about. Although regarding points such as: Who
decides at what point your actions are not a threat to someone else.
Well I guess that would be down to us. Or i'd like to think so. Maybe for
once in this country we should all stand up and take a more proactive
role in our own governance. Instead of being told what is right and wrong
by a very small minority.
A minority, who i believe. Have got the whole country's mood wrong. We
are all not frightened daily mail readers hiding behind our twitching net
curtains. I would like to think the majority of us. Or at least the peaple
reading this have common sense.
But i take your points completley to heart. Take running around naked for
example. Aside from the issue of whether public nakedness is right or
wrong. I think we can all agree we don't want it near any schools. I guess
a whole new legal system would take a LOT of work. going through every
single law judging it validity. But nothing easy is worth having.
In the end i think we would have a more just society.
Thankyou all for your time
Now where did i put that copy of the socialist manifest and my bull horn!
Paul
Really i think I should have started a discussion entitled "how to make a better
world"
Whoa! It's a slippery scale. One minute your on facebook commenting
on:"Iif ugly babies grow up to be ugly" and the next you trying to start a
revolution. Wow i think i need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Followed
by a revolution
Paul
Revolution attempt reported to MI5, God save the Queen!
Paul

LOL Well in that case if your listening Mr MI5.

You really should get out more. All that sitting in a darkened bunker. Your
obviously not getting enough vitimin D. Have you thought about
sunlamps? Maybe moisterising can help with all that conditioned air. I
Know!!!!!! What about that food vending machine! Your the goverment!
The least they could do is give you a subsidised canteen! Your worth it.
And don't get you started on MI6.... Always lording it over you. All that
travel to far off exotic loiacations. Bet they don't have a problem with
vitimin D deficancy. Bet they have a subsidised canteen in their secret
goeverment bunker! Bloody MI6.Whats that? You think someone should
do somthing about it? Whats that? You Want a revolution? Ah, i'll be
seeing you soon Comrade. Keep rubbing the cream!
Rob
@ paul richardson
"Who decides at what point your actions are not a threat to someone
else. "
The answer should be case law, and either a subjective or objective test
depending on the type of offence. Most things are decided subjectively,
ie. whether it was reasonable to have felt threatened and whether the
offender should have known their behaviour would be threatening,
depending on what the average man would perceive.
The problem is when the nanny state starts to codify everything, and
creates reams of european-style statutes. This makes the test more
objective, which can be unfair in many situations.
Paul

Mmmm interesting. I think what your saying we just need to exercise a bit more
common sense. And not adhere so slavishly to statue's, european or
otherwise. That they should be used as a guide and not a rule. A little bit
more common sense would go along way to achieving this.
At the end of the day what i've learnt from this. Is that there are no end
of options to make this country fairer. Its just how to go about
implementing them.
Obviously discussing them is a good start. And thanks all for cementing
what i thought, and thought I thought alone.
The question now is what to do next? How to get heard? Shout louder?
Join a political party? Take to the streets? Mmmmm again don't know. but
if you do let me know please?
???????????Les
But this law aready exists and has done since the signing of the Magna Carta,
acording to Blacks legal dictonary a statute law applys by consent of the
governed
whos the governed? sould a case of satute law be brought against you,
the answer is you are and do you give your consent? and not as you
might think by admiting your guilt but by admiting your legal fiction,
difficult at first but once you grasp the idea it becomes so simple
common law never went away thank God, we need it now more than
ever,
"As you read this page, ever-increasing control mechanisms are being
installed in Great Britain and Lawful Rebellion is the most recent human
reaction to this phenomena. Lawful Rebellion has a strong British identity
because its here we find its people have been uniquely suppressed,
divided and robbed through the Vaticans Canon Law and administration
by puppet Stewards of the Crown reigning their incestuous bloodlines
across Europe. There has never been a free modern civilisation. It was
in fact the Romans who came up with the idea to give slaves relative
freedom (Citizens), removing the shackles in return for money/credit,
taxes and Canon Law (Commercial Law), giving birth to Civilisation as we
see it today. As John Harris points out, since the Treaty of Verona in
1213,"
Paul
Thanks. I feel like i'll certainly have a lot of reading to do. It does help
that I find all this incredibly interesting. Thank you all
Les

I, John James Harris now declare my right under Common Law of England to
Withdraw And Withhold all allegiance & obedience to the Person and
Crown of Our Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth the Queen, and those who falsely
claim to speak &/or to act in Her Name, and by such action, I will remove
myself entirely from the authority of those Evil Persons who now seek to
abuse & misuse me in the name of Elizabeth, the Queen and in absolute
violation of the Common Law of the People to which I belong.
I hereby place on record of all persons that after said 40 days have
expired, being the 1st day of May 2008 and the corrections I seek have
not been made, by way of the dismissal of the Traitors in the House of
Commons, then I John James Harris, will enter into Lawful rebellion under
article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and therefore will become a Freeman of
England within the Freedom of Common Law.
AND I GIVE NOTICE that I will return to my full allegiance to the Person;
Estate & Imperial Crown of Elizabeth the Queen only when Her Majesty
the Queen is released from the bondage that now prevents her from the
free exercise of her lawful authority and duty to Uphold the Common Law
that is my birthright and to ensure for all time to come that the
government of my country is conducted in full accordance with the laws
and customs of my people.
May God in His Mercy, Defend the Right & May God Save the Queen from
those who now hold her in an Unlawful Captivity.
Contracts
I am not making this up; the courts literally trick us into contracting with
them in order for us to slit our
own throats by breaching the terms and conditions of the contract. This is
WHY we are asked if we will
swear. We have an option; we are not required to tell the truth unless
we swear we will - i.e.: enter into a
contract with someone and agree to tell the truth. The sole purpose of
that question is to get us to contract.
They have NO jurisdiction until we contract. As long as we do not contract
with them - and no law can
compel anyone to contract - we can remain free. We have the right to
contract and .... the right not to
contract. All they do is go along with us. They have no commercial
energy of their own - they rely on us to
give it to them. All law is commerce; all commerce is contract; no
contract - no case.
The above is a subject well worth studying, in my opinon. As Rousseau
once said: "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." We are by
nature free human beings, but we have been confused in our minds in

regard to what we are and the false entity in the form of a legal entity
that has been created, without our informed consent. Well, we can now
fill in the gaps that our educaton has failed to fill. Here is a bit of study
material which may serve as a key to open the prison door!