The Politics of Law

Featured

IMG_5985-300x199 (1)According to its founders, nothing is as inflexible as law. However, as time passed and society amended, and the most importantly the existence of legal and paralegal professionals, law has become very flexible. It is the “politics” that should be very flexible with reference to time and place; however, it its modern time, law was converted to be as flexible as politics. 1. What is/are the reason(s) for such the change? And 2. Whether it is good or bad? The following paragraphs aim to answer the above two questions.

Regarding the first question, I have two reasons to verbalize. In the first place, is that the society is changing and always changing too fast and the law must follow such the social changes. For example, in the earlier time, there has never been any internet or email, so law to generates such the multimedia means did not exist. However, after the internet and email exist, the law must exist to prevent internet and email from making social problems.

Difference between Law and Politics

2To me, education is not just the matter of financial livelihood and social status, but why education is needed? Whether the provided education is authentic, what the lacks or loopholes of education are and to the final stage: would education make the absorbers immortal? These are some of the questions and rhetoric that make me view education very differently from those of my peers and even my parents and lecturers.

http://www.lawyers-list.com differs law and politics which are usually confused with one another and cannot be meticulously separated from each other; as we usually hear the Faculty of Law and Politics, Center for Political and Legal Tuition, Professor of Law and Politics, etc. These are the facts that initiate me an idea to bring the core difference between Law and Politics and put it on a public display. The core difference would help the student to deeper understand the subject matters.

Do you have such the wonder? If no, start to make yourself curious about the core difference between Law and Politics to initiate your mental vocation and if yes, this is an article to unveil you a unique difference between Law and Politics to make you deeply understand.

As a student of Law, newspaper columnist, expert author, media liaison officer, legal and political assistant, I have found one complete differences between Law and Politics. This difference is “the interpretation.”

Most students of Law and Politics do not know that the most important theme of their education is “the interpretation.” Why I dare to say this? Up to the present, we have billions of sources ranking from books and international media publication to the abstract sources, but these so-called information will not make us a true political analyst or lawyer.

What we are seeing on these sources is just “plain information”, so what are these information are. If information is just all about information, University is not needed, because most of these sources are available everywhere and even free. The things that we have not found on these sources are “the interpretation” or the path to interpretational secretes.

Legal interpretation must be “within”: in interpreting the law, the lawyer of any party or the conflicting parties themselves cannot interpret the law out of the law being enforced in the country where the trial is being heard. This may seem very vague and let us bring an example to clarify. If you commit or are accused of committing a crime in the country in which you are residing in, you or your lawyer are not entitled to interpret the law out of the laws being enforced in your residing country. To a stricter extent, the laws being used for interpretation must circumnavigate the crime that you did or are accused of committing. This case is different from “political interpretation.”

Politics, Elections and the Law of Attraction

1Politics and the Law of Attraction definitely mix. When people think of the Law of Attraction (LOA) they tend to focus upon money, health, relationships, employment and generally personal issues. However, the basic tenet of the LOA is that it operates all of the time, in every situation and at every level of society. There is no time or place or issue that is not under the LOA. Gravity works on the planet for the rich and the poor, for the young and the old, for Republicans and Democrats as doe the LOA.

On a societal level, the LOA has determined the course of history. It has brought peace or war, abundance or poverty, power or weakness, freedom or slavery to the world’s nations. The LOA basically states that form or reality follows thoughts. The more powerful the thoughts, and the emotions and intentions behind those thoughts; the greater the manifestation of those thoughts. This occurs either consciously or unconsciously. Nations whose people live with an underlying fear of neighbors are frequently at war with those neighbors. A nation that is confident of its goals, hopes and future tend to thrive. People, both individually and as a society attract what they either desire or what they fear.

With respect to the American election process, it is clear that it is adversarial; one party against the other. The “Secret” indicated that all too often, people fight against something, rather than for something. In this process more energy is often put into what is not wanted than what is wanted. Frequently, this results in the undesirable being manifested. The more energy, thought and emotion that goes into fighting against a candidate results in that candidate winning; form follows the thought. This is why those who teach the LOA try to get people to understand not to fight against something, e.g. war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, fight against cancer or obesity. This very mindset creates and attracts what is not desired. My new book, POLARIZING YOUR LIFE TOWARDS PERFECTION (soon to be released by Cambridge Book), shows how this process works and how to avoid this mindset.

In the current campaign for president, both Obama and McCain have fallen into the same old process of campaigning against each other. Debates are scheduled, the rhetoric is flying and ads attack the position of the other. Furthermore, supporters of these candidates tend to be ‘against’ the opponent more so than ‘for’ their desired the politician they support. Most discussion is centered on what is disliked rather than what is liked. The result is a polarized thought form that creates tension and discord. Perhaps Obama came closest to a proper understanding of a more correct process when he said that the election is not about him, rather, it is about the people. If the election process ran on this basis, we would not have debates, but rather forums. There would be no negative ads, but rather commercials that say what the candidate believes. We lean very little when debates are merely one politician attacking the other. A better system would be to have each candidate present their ideas, their record and their programs with audiences able to seek clarification, but not debate. In this way we attract quality discussion void of negativity.