University of sunderland

Question 2

• 
  The Doctrine of Precedent.
  

The theory of precedence is founded on the principle of stare judgment, which allows the lower courts, where the material facts are the same, to take into account and complies with judgments taken by higher courts and specifies that, as a general rule, courts obey previous decisions by themselves or by other courts of the same levels. In this post we discuss whether the position of the magistrates is applicable to the doctrine or the status of the courts. Stare Decisis is a legal concept that refers to the preceding doctrine in legal system - court judgments governed by earlier judicial decisions. The word comes from a Latin expression meaning "to stand up to stuff agreed" or "let the judgment stand." It is customary common law, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, that judges obey prior decisions when making decisions in related cases. When a court decides on a question of law, the lower courts of the same jurisdiction are obliged to obey the verdict with their own judgement, with the exception of another higher court ruling. In the United States, the Supreme Court and different Federal Supreme Court judges normally decide legal precedents. It is possible to create precedents in a lower court, although they are less binding and conclusive than decisions in the higher courts. The nullations of the U.S. Supreme Court rule future decisions of the lower courts of the United States. However, decisions of the State Supreme Court only set a precedent for all courts in that state and are not considered a binding precedent for judgements by courts in other jurisdictions.

• 
  Stare Decisis.
  

The theory of stare decision is practiced solely to ensure that judicial rulings are consistent with fairness and continuity. It encourages both judges and lawyers to implement the law consistently. It is also a type of judicial retention that prevents a single judge in a lower court from making rulings that do not comply with that existing law by higher courts. Going to follow judicial precedents serves to increase the efficiency of legal and judicial processes, since they prevent judges from constantly examining the same specific dispute in any similar case. It is said the Stare Decision applies both horizontally and vertically.

One instance is that the Supreme Court in the past made laws against gun restrictions but the courts now start to see it differently because of mass fire and using military-style assault guns. It took a long time, though. The 7th circuit and the 4th circuit courts recently decided that rifles of the attack type had no immunity from the Second Amendment. These regulations have opened up ways for cities to start prohibiting military-style attacks and right now some states are even starting to draw up legislation against them. Some other precedent is perhaps one of the worse cases where a slave sued his rights and where the Supreme Court found against him, but as society was changing, as they made an amendment against slavery, they had to make that ruling abundant. Let's get one thing out here, too. Inalienable rights concern just life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. This same sentence is the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. Around 16 years after the Constitution was added as the amendments were adopted. Modifications are not absolute rights, this isn't dead. Law unchanged as a dying language. Provisions can be redefined and subsequently revised and even all together can be suppressed. And before it happened. As is the case with the 13th amendment, to which the 14th amendment has been applied, and then there is the ban amendment, entirely scrapped.