Just what is a social law? It is but one of many legal topics that is regulated by a body of laws, rules and principles which were developed to address various issues which affect the individual, society or community. These issues may be associated with human rights, freedom of speech, solitude, violence, abuse and discrimination within the parameters of legal regulation. The area of social law is one of the most fascinating areas of study because it encompasses many different areas of human rights. A feature unique to this area of study is that it is quite different from different branches of law since it involves an evaluation and execution of the principles and ideas in relation to the particular social issues and issues.
In reality, the study of social law started long before the inception of the modern state. In ancient Athens, there were many philosophers who advocated and advanced several theories about what constitute a just and civilized society. Among the most prominent among these thinkers was Aristotle, who taught that there are 3 separate kinds of societies, namely, polity, aristocracy and democracy. Aristotle maintained that there are two sorts of authorities in the human world; that is, one is ruled by a private institution, the other by a public institution and the final is dominated by a sozial, or even universal legislation.
The main difference between a private and a public law process is that the latter will lag behind when it comes to developments. That is why Alexander Hamilton noted,”A century hasn’t been long enough for the changes that it has to experience.” Private and public laws differ in regard to their scope, jurisdiction, length, interpretation and alterations. Additionally, the two systems share similarities, with some similarities also being shared between the two.
Historically, social legislation has had a great effect on the evolution of the law since it was initially introduced as a different branch of the legal system. By way of example, criminal and civil legislation were derived from the social law of their property. The main use of civil law was supposed to provide rights and protections to citizens, including freedom of speech and religion, contrary to the violations of individual rights which were protected in the Constitution and legislation. Criminal law, on the other hand, was designed to punish those who perpetrate criminal acts, such as theft, murder, arson and so forth. While both are public laws, the separation of these two branches of law reflected the separation of powers that existed in American authorities. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government are all vested with the capacity to protect the people in the misuse of power and also to make sure that each and every citizen is treated equally under the law.
These days, many men and women think about the separation of these branches of law to be an antiquated and obsolete system, especially because the Supreme Court has extended constitutional rights to companies from the Citizens’ United v. Federal Contractor’s judgment. But, proponents of social contract theory consider that the current social contract is neither one nor two-sided as the first contract pictured since it fails to provide protection to the poor, the minorities and the disadvantaged. Proponents of social contract theory believe that you can’t protect the interests of the poor and disadvantaged while additionally providing rights for the wealthy at the expense of the minority.
Proponents of social contract theory assert that the U.S. Constitution includes no guarantee of social welfare and so criminal and civil law is redundant when it’s unnecessary to guard individuals people who are not able to protect themselves or their interests through the courts. Instead, social contract theory maintains that a just society provides opportunities for most to participate in the political process and create their representation in the form of democracy. Whether this idea is embraced by U.S. taxpayers, it’s thought that the political system will inevitably fail to adequately represent the interests of nearly all citizens, causing a hyperinflation of political institutions, a decrease of political freedoms, the eventual death of the nation-state and also the rise of a new authoritarian regime. However, proponents of social contract theory assert that the breakdown of the state system and rise of a new constitutional government won’t likely occur unless the masses drop confidence in both the legal system and the government itself.