What Is The Law Of The Land?

What Is The Law Of The Land

The law of the land is the whole body of valid laws, statutory or otherwise, existing and in force in a country or jurisdiction at a particular date. Every valid statute is the “law of the land” with respect to its subject matter. The law of the land is constantly changing as new statutes are enacted and old ones repealed, or new principles evolved. “Law of the land” is synonymous with ” due process of law.” For example, the Constitution of North Carolina states, “No person shall be,, deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land,” while the United States Constitution states, no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The phrase “law of the land” can trace its origins to the Magna Carta where it was used in the law of the land clause, the predecessor to the due process clauses of the United States Constitution. The law of the land clause states, “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

What is meant by the law of the land?

The law of the land is the whole body of valid laws, statutory or otherwise, existing and in force in a country or jurisdiction at a particular date. Every valid statute is the “law of the land” with respect to its subject matter. The law of the land is constantly changing as new statutes are enacted and old ones repealed, or new principles evolved. “Law of the land” is synonymous with ” due process of law.” For example, the Constitution of North Carolina states, “No person shall be,, deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land,” while the United States Constitution states, no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The phrase “law of the land” can trace its origins to the Magna Carta where it was used in the law of the land clause, the predecessor to the due process clauses of the United States Constitution. The law of the land clause states, “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

What is the law of the land in America?

The Constitution What Is The Law Of The Land The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. Learn more about our founding document. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” — Preamble to the Constitution The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States.

Why is it called the law of the land?

Understanding the Law of Land What Is The Law Of The Land The expression ‘ Law of the Land ‘ comes from the Latin words lex terrae or legem terrae which is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary to mean all laws that are in force within a country or region, including statute law and case-made law. The concept of ‘ Law of the Land ‘ first flapped its wings in 1215 in Magna Carta.

  • Since then the term has been interpreted by different scholars and jurists to formulate numerous legal propositions and doctrines.
  • A narrow analysis of the expression may suggest that the term is a mere synonym of the concept of Natural Justice and Rule of Law.
  • However, a wider connotation of the expression opens gates to many possibilities like- it can be understood as the law that fulfils the basic necessities of man i.e.

Fundamental Rights; or the law which prohibits arbitrary use of powers by an authority; or laws which primarily define the structure of the Government of a country; or an aggregate of basic principles of all fields of life like property, rights, crime, tort, etc.

What are the three laws of the land?

In Article VI (the ‘supremacy clause’), three items are listed as the supreme law of the land: the Constitution; laws of the national government (when consistent with the Constitution); and treaties.

What does the Bible say about the laws of the land?

What Does the Bible Say about Laws of the Land – Denha & Associates, PLLC 10 “If anyone gives his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any animal to protect him, and he dies, or is wounded, or cast out without anyone seeing him, 11 there shall be an oath of the Lord between the two of them to see whether or not he has laid his hand on his neighbor`s property.

The owner takes an oath and does not make restitution.12 But if it is stolen from him, he will make amends to his owner.13 If he is torn apart by animals, let him prove it. It does not repair what has been torn.25 “If you lend money with you to one of my people who is poor, you will not be like a lender to him, and you will not charge him interest.26 If you ever take your neighbor`s mantle as a pledge, you will return it to him before the sun sets, 27 for it is his only cover, and it is his mantle for his body; What else is he supposed to sleep in? And when he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am merciful.

As Christians, we learn that God allows mankind to try to govern itself. Through the experience of attempting self-government (without recognizing God`s laws), mankind learns that we cannot establish a righteous government without God`s power and wisdom.

  1. So we obey the present powers by praying: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as in heaven.” For when the Lord`s judgments are on earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.
  2. Isaiah 26:9) He said to you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, if not to exercise righteousness, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God? Related biblical dictionary terms:Shalim Land Shalisha Land Shinar Land Shual Land Sinim Land Tob Land Uz Land Zuph Land “The earth will not be sold forever, for the earth is mine.

For you are strangers and travelers with me. Behold, I will bring out of Satan`s synagogue those who say that they are Jews and that they are not, but lie—behold, I will bring them to prostrate themselves at your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.

  1. Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will take you away from the hour of trial that befalls the whole world to test those who dwell on earth.
  2. I`m coming soon.
  3. Hold on to what you have so no one can grab your crown.
  4. Whoever wins, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God.
  5. He will never come out, and I will write on him the name of my God and the name of my God`s city, the new Jerusalem descended from my God`s heaven, and my own new name.

He who has an ear hears what the Spirit says to the churches. But a man named Ananias sold a piece of property with his wife Saphira, and with the knowledge of his wife, he kept part of the product for himself and brought only part of it and laid it at the feet of the apostles.

But Peter said, “Ananias, why did Satan fill your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and withhold some of the earth`s revenue for you? Although it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, wasn`t it available to you? Why did you invent this act in your heart? You didn`t lie to people, but to God.

When Ananias heard these words, he fell and breathed his last. And a great fear took hold of all who heard of it. This was usually done in the form of a small pinch of incense on a public altar. For Christians and Jews, such an act was unthinkable. This was clearly the sin of idolatry.

So navigating the laws could be very difficult for believers in the one God of the Bible. And God spoke all these words and said, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” You will have no other gods beside me. “Thou shalt not make a carved image for yourself, or an image of anything that is in the sky, or of what is on the earth, or of what is in the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down to them and serve them, for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God who witnesses the injustice of the fathers against the children of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. Behold, I have taught you the laws and rules, as the Lord my God has commanded me to make them in the land where you enter to take possession of them.

  1. Whatever you want others to do unto you, do to them, for it is the law and the prophets.
  2. Anyone who takes a human life will certainly be killed.
  3. Whoever takes the life of an animal should do it well, life for life`s sake.
  4. If someone hurts his neighbour, as he did, let it happen to him, fracture after fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; Any harm he has done to a person will be inflicted on him.

Whoever kills an animal should do well, and whoever kills a human being will be killed. I therefore call you, brethren, by the mercy of God, to offer your body as a living, holy and pleasing sacrifice to God, which is your spiritual adoration. Do not conform to this world, but transform yourselves by renewing your mind, so that through trial you may know what God`s will is, what is good, acceptable, and perfect.

What is another word for law of the land?

Nounlaw based on customs or traditions. custom. law of the land. oral code. tradition.

See also:  What Is The Massachusetts Lemon Law For Used Cars?

Is law of the land a real thing?

The phrase law of the land is a legal term, equivalent to the Latin lex terrae, or legem terrae in the accusative case, It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including statute law and case-made law,

Can you actually own land in America?

TAKING A FRESH LOOK – But the human-human power struggle is hardly the only, or even the most important, issue in our relationship to the land. Whatever happened to the tribal concerns about caring for the land and preserving it for future generations? What about issues like justice, human empowerment and economic efficiency? How about the rights of the land itself? If we are to move forward towards a planetary/ecological age, all of these questions and issues are going to need to be integrated into our relationship to the land.

  • To do this we will have to get out beyond the narrow circle of the ideas and arguments of the past.
  • We have been talking about “ownership” as if it was an obvious, clear-cut concept: either you own (control) something or you don’t.
  • For most people (throughout history) this has been a useful approximation, and it has been the basis of the “great ownership debate.” But if you try to pin it down (as lawyers must), you will soon discover that it is not so simple.

As surprising as it may seem, our legal system has developed an understanding of “owning” that is significantly different from our common ideas and has great promise as the basis for a much more appropriate human relationship to the land. Ownership Is A Bundle Of Rights The first step is to recognize that, rather than being one thing, what we commonly call “ownership” is in fact a whole group of legal rights that can be held by some person with respect to some “property.” In the industrial West, these usually include the right to:

use (or not use); exclude others from using; irreversibly change; sell, give away or bequeath; rent or lease; retain all rights not specifically granted to others; retain these rights without time limit or review.

These rights are usually not absolute, for with them go certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes, being liable for suits brought against the property, and abiding by the laws of the land. If these laws include zoning laws, building codes, and environmental protection laws, you may find that your rights to use and irreversibly change are not as unlimited as you thought.

  1. Nevertheless, within a wide range you are the monarch over your property.
  2. No One Owns Land Each of these rights can be modified independent of the others, either by law or by the granting of an easement to some other party, producing a bewildering variety of legal conditions.
  3. How much can you modify the above conditions and still call it “ownership”? To understand the answer to this, we are going to have to make a very important distinction.

In spite of the way we normally talk, no one ever “owns land”. In our legal system you can only own rights to land, you can’t directly own (that is, have complete claim to) the land itself. You can’t even own all the rights since the state always retains the right of eminent domain.

For example, what happens when you sell an easement to the power company so that they can run power lines across you land? They then own the rights granted in that easement, you own most of the other rights, the state owns the right of eminent domain – but no single party owns “the land.” You can carry this as far as you like, dividing the rights up among many “owners,” all of whom will have a claim on some aspect of the land.

The wonderful thing about this distinction is that it shifts the whole debate about land ownership away from the rigid state-vs.-individual, all-or-nothing battle to the much more flexible question of who (including community groups, families, etc. as well as the state and the individual) should have which rights.

  • This shift could be as important as the major improvement in governance that came with the shift from monolithic power (as in a monarchy) to “division of powers” (as exemplified in the U.S.
  • Constitution with its semi-independent legislative, executive and judicial branches).
  • Legitimate Interests How might the problems associated with exclusive ownership (either private or state) be solved by a “division of rights” approach? To answer this, we need to first consider what are the legitimate interests that need to be included in this new approach.

If we are to address all the concerns appropriate for a humane sustainable culture we need to recognize that the immediate user of the land (be that a household or a business), the local community, the planetary community, future generations, and all of life, all have legitimate interests.

The immediate users need the freedom to be personally (or corporately) expressive, creative, and perhaps even eccentric. They need to be able to invest energy and caring into the land with reasonable security that the use of the land will not be arbitrarily taken away and that the full equity value of improvements made to the land will be available to them either through continued use or through resale should they choose to move. The local community needs optimal use of the land within it, without having land held arbitrarily out of use by absentee landlords. It needs to be able to benefit from the equity increases in the land itself due to the overall development of the community, and it needs security that its character will not be forced to change through inappropriate land use decisions made by those outside the community or those leaving the community. The planetary community, future generations, and all of life need sustainable use – the assurance that ecosystems and topsoil that have been developed over hundreds of thousands of years will not be casually destroyed; that the opportunities for life will be enhanced; that non-renewal resources will be used efficiently and for long term beneficial purposes. This larger community also needs meaningful recognition that the earth is our common heritage.

Is it possible to blend these various interests in a mutually supportive way, rather than seeing them locked in a power struggle? The answer, fortunately, is yes. Perhaps the best developed alternative legal form that does this is called a land trust.

Which is the highest law of the land?

The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

What upholds the law of land?

Rule of Law And Indian Constitution – Rule of law has no fixed articulation in the Indian constitution though the Indian courts refer to this phrase in variety of its judgements. The maxim ‘The King can do no wrong’ has no application in India and all public authorities are made subject to jurisdiction of ordinary law courts and to the same sets of laws.

In Indian constitution is the law of the land and prevails over Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. These three organs of the state have to act according to the principles engraved in the constitution. Under the Indian constitution the rule of law is incorporated in many of its provisions. For example the object of achieving equality, liberty and justice are reflected in the Preamble to the Indian constitution.

Article 14 guarantees right to equality before law and equal protection of law. It states that no one shall be denied the equality before law and the equal protection of the law by the state. The direct connotation of these words provided under Article 14 is that the law is supreme and there is no scope of arbitrariness as everybody is governed by the rule of law.

  1. Law treats everybody equally without any biases, which is the basic requirement of Rule of Law.
  2. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v.
  3. Union of India the Supreme court in clear words observed that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state actions and ensures fairness and equality in treatment.
  4. Rule of law which is the basic feature of the Indian Constitution excludes arbitrariness.

Where there is arbitrariness there is denial of Rule of Law. Art 15, 16, 23 further strengthened the ideal of equality by the incorporation of protective discrimination as a means of ensuring equality amongst equals. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution is another example which upheld the doctrine of Rule of Law in India.

  • The “laws” defined under Article 13 as rules, regulations, bye-laws and ordinances can be struck down if they are contrary to the constitution of India.
  • In Keshavananda Bharti v.
  • State of Kerala, the Supreme Court has included the Rule of Law as the basic feature of the Constitution.
  • In this case, though the Supreme Court upheld the amending power of the Parliament which extends to every Article provided under the Constitution but has limited that power by providing that such power cannot be used in amending the basic feature of the Constitution.

Fundamental rights are universal and inalienable rights, Such fundamental rights can only be protected by the state that respects the Rule of Law. Fundamental rights are provided under part III of the Indian Constitution. Such Fundamental Rights cannot be abrogated and can be enforced under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution,

  • The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the land and every law has to be in conformity with the Constitution.
  • If any law is in violation of any of the provision of the Constitution, especially the fundamental rights shall be declared void.
  • One of the basic postulates of the Rule of Law besides justice and equality is Liberty.

The fundamental right to life and personal liberty is provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. This Article postulates that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except by the procedure established by law, thus making the law supreme.

Such right also guarantees that no person is convicted except for the violation of law which is in force at the time of commission of an offence and not for any other act. The principle of double jeopardy and self-incrimination is also well recognized in the Indian Constitution. Article 19 which provides various freedoms to the individual is again something which runs on the principles of Rule of Law as these freedoms can only be curtailed on the grounds of reasonableness which should be satisfied on the basis of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

These three articles are so essential to the Indian Constitution that they are often called as the Golden Triangle Articles of the Constitution. In E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another The Supreme Court held that for the state to justify its action of curtailment of fundamental right it has to fulfil all the requirements provided under Article 14, 19 and 21.

See also:  Who Was The Law West Of The Pecos?

Another significant derivative of rule of law is judicial review, Judicial review is the essential part of the rule of law. It not only protects the constitutional principles but also checks administrative actions and its legality. All actions of the state authorities and bureaucracy are all subject to judicial review and are accountable to the courts for the reasonableness of their actions.

These are the essential ingredients and the basic assumption of rule of law and not of men in all civilized nations. The Indian constitution has also provided adequate provision for the independence of judiciary as it is the guardian of the constitution and fundamental rights of the citizens.

Why do we need to obey the laws of the land?

Related Material –

Learning objectives To explore the nature of people’s legal responsibilities. To explore the distinction between moral and legal obligations.
Student tasks Students analyse a moral dilemma in a plenary discussion. Students critically evaluate reasons for legal obedience. Students suggest situations in which a moral duty might override the duty to obey the law.
Resources Copies of the story “Schmitt’s Dilemma”. Paper for written tasks. Blackboard.
Methods Shared analysis of moral dilemma. Teacher-supported analysis. Story writing. Plenary discussion.

table>

Law: A rule made by local or national government. Rule of law: In democratic societies, governments and those in power are subject to the law of the land. Power changes hands democratically according to the rules of the country’s constitution, not as the result of force or war. People have a general duty to obey the law because it is democratically decided. Legal duty: The obligations people have put upon them by the law. Moral responsibility: The personal obligations people feel based on their beliefs about what is right and wrong.

The teacher introduces the story “Schmitt’s Dilemma” and asks students to work in pairs to consider whether Schmitt should break the law and steal the money or not. The teacher writes different opinions on the blackboard as to whether Schmitt should steal the money. The teacher asks the students to choose an opinion they agree with and add their own reason in writing:

  • Schmitt should steal the money because
  • Schmitt should not steal the money because
  • The teacher notes the range of reasons suggested by the students on the blackboard. For example,
  • “He should steal the money because his daughter’s life is more important than the law against stealing”;
  • “He should not steal the money because he could get caught”; or
  • “He should not steal because it is wrong to break the law”.

The different reasons are then discussed in class. Why are they different? Are some reasons better than others? The teacher then asks the students to complete this sentence:

  1. “It is generally wrong to break the law because”
  2. Alternatively the teacher could ask the class to think of as many reasons as they can as to why it is wrong to break the law. Typically, in answer to this question, people come up with a range of replies, including the following:
  3. “It is wrong to break the law because:
  • you could get caught and be punished;
  • the law protects people from harm and it is wrong to harm other people;
  • everyone would go wild if the law did not stop them;
  • law-breaking undermines trust between people;
  • society needs law and order to survive, without laws there will be chaos;
  • law-breaking violates individual people’s rights, such as their rights to property or to life.”

The teacher points out to the class that people have a range of reasons for obeying the law. Some of these have to do with self-interest, other reasons show concern for other people and some show a concern for the well-being of society as a whole (see note below).

To illustrate these concepts, the teacher could draw a series of three concentric rings on the blackboard with “self”, “others” and “society” written in each ring, starting from the inner ring. The different reasons should be written in the appropriate area. The teacher stresses that legal obedience of itself is not necessarily a sign of a “good citizen”.

Many wrong deeds have been committed by people who were in fact obeying the law, saying they were only “doing their duty”. On the other hand, the story shows that from time to time even good people might have to consider breaking a particular law for a morally good reason.

To support the students’ understanding of the difficult balance between legal duties and moral responsibilities, the teacher then asks the students to write their own short stories in which people (for good reasons) consider breaking the law. Examples might be breaking the speed limit in an emergency or defying a law because it is bad or unjust.

Some of the students read their examples aloud in the plenary discussion. The teacher then underlines the distinction between moral responsibilities (which people take upon themselves as part of their own values and beliefs) and legal duties, which are imposed by governments.

  • The tensions between these two kinds of responsibility may lead citizens to criticise some laws they disagree with and to work to change them.
  • They may even, on occasion, decide to break some laws for morally positive reasons.
  • History offers many examples of situations in which people have broken laws in order to protest against them or to rebel against tyrannical governments.

The teacher should illustrate this with some local examples. The teacher should stress that such actions should not be taken lightly because of the danger of undermining the rule of law, upon which stable democracies depend.

What are the two laws of the land?

History – While the Magna Carta first used the term, it did not actually become the law of the land until the reign of Edward I of England, It became closely associated with another phrase that helped define the law of the land’ due process. During the reign of Edward II the Liberty of Subjects Act of 1354 stated:

No man, of what estate or condition soever, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death without being brought in answer by due process of law.

The law of the land and the Liberty of Subjects act remained in use in England. Both were used in colonial charters and common law, They became part of US laws after the American colonies declared their independence from England in 1776.

What is the law of the land in Philippines?

The Constitution (1987) is the fundamental law of the land in the Philippines. It establishes the structure, policies, roles and duties of the Philippines’ government. It contains the Bill of Rights (article III), and sets out the State’s obligations to promote and uphold social justice and human rights (article XIII).

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides that “generally accepted principles of international law” are “part of the law of the land.” Section 18 of the Constitution lays out the procedure how the President, as Commander-in-Chief, may call for the suspension of the write of habeas corpus of declare any part of the Philippines under martial law.

Section 23(2) gives Congress, in times of war or other national emergency, the power to authorize the President to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. The Criminal Procedure Code (2000) contains all the rules of court on civil and criminal procedures.

  • The rights of the accused are listed in Rule 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • The Revised Penal Code (An Act Revising the Penal Code and other Penal Laws No.3815, December 8, 1930) (RPC) contains many of the Philippines’ crimes, including national security-related crimes, such as: treason (articles 114 to 116), piracy and mutiny on the high seas (articles 122 to 123), sedition (articles 139 to 142), illegal assemblies and associations (articles 146 to 147), and unlawful means of publication and unlawful utterances (article 154).

In the past decade, the Philippines adopted two laws that are primarily aimed to counter terrorism: the Human Security Act (2007) and the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (2012). The Human Security Act defines the crime of terrorism as the commission of an act defined under specific provisions in the Revised Penal Code and other special laws to sow and create widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.

  • A Supreme Court challenge to the HSA, Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., et. al.v.
  • The Anti-Terrorism Council, et. al.
  • Was dismissed for lack of standing.
  • In its 2012 conclusion to the Philippines’ fourth periodic review, the Human Rights Committee recommended the Philippines ensure the HSA defines terrorist crimes with enough precision to allow persons to regulate their conduct.

The Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (2012) defines the crime “financing terrorism” as possessing, providing, collecting, or using property or funds with the unlawful and willful intention that they be used, in full or in part, to carry out or facilitate the commission of any terrorist act by a terrorist organization, association or group, or by an individual terrorist (section 4).

It incorporates the definition under the Human Security Act of what constitute “terrorist acts” (section 3(j)). The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) has the authority to investigate allegations of terrorist financing (section 10). Other penal laws related to national security are the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law (1974); the Act prohibiting certain acts inimical to civil aviation, and for other purposes – Republic Act No.6235; and the Anti-Money Laundering Act (2001).

The Act Defining and Penalizing Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance – Republic Act No.10353 (2012) sets out the State’s policy on enforced disappearances (section 2) and defines enforced or involuntary disappearance (section 3(b)). It establishes the detainee’s right of access to communication (section 6) and places numerous duties, as well as criminal and civil liabilities, on private citizens and government officials in order to prevent enforced disappearances.

  • The Cybercrime Prevention Act (2012) lists down all the acts that constitute the offense of cybercrime (section 4).
  • Several groups such as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Philippine Press Institute, Philippine Bar Association, etc.
  • Filed petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the law, claiming that it violates provisions in the Philippine Constitution.
See also:  How To Get A Job At A Law Firm?

On 18 February 2014, the Supreme Court released a decision that declared unconstitutional the following provisions in the law:

a. Section 4(c)(3), which penalizes the posting of unsolicited commercial communications; b. Section 12, which authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real time; and c. Section 19, which authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected Computer Data.

Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

What Would You Say? – You’re in a conversation and someone says, “Is it ever ok for Christians to disobey the law?” What would you say? People should obey the law. Social order is good and our laws preserve the social order. If people only obeyed the laws they like, the result would be chaos.

  1. But what about when laws are bad? Should Christians obey bad laws too? The next time someone says that Christians should always obey the law, in all cases, remember these four things.
  2. First, God created Government.
  3. Christians show submission to God by submitting to authorities God created.
  4. Second, Christians should obey the law.

God calls Christians to be obedient, faithful citizens, even in cases of bad leadership. Third, working within the law to challenge bad laws is not only acceptable for Christians, it may be an obligation. Fourth, Christians cannot obey man’s laws if it conflicts with God’s law.

Who carries out the laws of the land?

The executive branch consists of the President, his or her advisors and various departments and agencies. This branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land. The following are executive branch organizations and agencies: Executive Office of the President (White House)

What is the law given by Jesus?

In the gospels – Many Christians believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a form of commentary on the Ten Commandments, It portrays Christ as the true interpreter of the Mosaic Law, In the Expounding of the Law, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill (complete, end, expire ) them ( Matthew 5:17 ).

Jesus explicitly warns of severe concequence to those who break and teach others to break one of the least of the commands of God ( Matthew 5:19 ) In the non-canonical Gospel of Marcion ‘s version of Luke 23:2 we find the extension: “We found this fellow perverting the nation and destroying the law and the prophets “.

While the New Testament records several unique sayings of Jesus that may be described as “commandments,” it only records one that he explicitly identified as such. This is the New Commandment of John 13:34–35 that the disciples should love one another as he himself had loved them.

  • At times, Jesus referred to commandments of God from Old Testament scripture.
  • In Matthew 22:36–40, a Pharisee lawyer asked Jesus “which is the great commandment in the Law?” Jesus responded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
  • This is the great and first commandment.

And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” Such commandments, as discussed by or relating to Christ, are commonly seen as a basis of Christian ethics,

What is the law of the land quizlet?

The Constitution is the ‘supreme law of the land.’ The U.S. Constitution has lasted longer than any other country’s constitution. It establishes the basic principles of the Untied States government.

What is the meaning of the word of law?

: a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see prescribe sense 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules. The courts exist to uphold, interpret, and apply the law.

What is land in Black’s Law Dictionary?

Black law dictionary 7 th edition defines land as “An immovable and indestructible three dimensional areas consisting of a portion of the earth’s surface the space above and below the surface and everything growing on or permanently affixed to the land”.

  • What emerges from the definition above is that land may have both a natural and artificial content, though its natural content namely the ground and its subsoil and things below or above the earth’s surface, where an artificial content includes building and other structures or trees has been added.
  • It further explains that land is immovable.

However, the question has arisen whether such additions form an integral part of the ground so as to accrue to the owner of the ground. Under English law, the part or principle of “quic quid plantatour solo solo credit” which means that whatever is attached or fixed to the land is part of the land is fully operational.

  • Thus building material placed on land do not become land until the building is erected and would cease to be part of the land when the building is demolished.
  • The applicability of the maxim quic quid plantatour solo solo credit to customary law has been a matter of great controversy amongst writers.
  • In Ezejiofor (1989) view, the maxim quic quid plantatour solo solo credit is not a rule of customary law there under a person who for whatever reasons introduces an improvement unto land without the permission of the landowner is the rightful owner of the improvement.

According to Obi (1963), a remarkable aspect of African customary law is that land does not includes things growing on, attached to the soil and that neither economic trees not houses form a part of the land on which they stand. In Yoruba’s customary law, a definition is drawn between land (the soil) and improvements thereon (Lloyd,1962).

Expressing a similar view, Kludz (1974) explained that among the Ewes in Modern day Ghana land means the soil itself as well as the subsoil and anything under the soil such as soil minerals but that does not include things as or attached to the soil such as tree, houses or other permanent fixtures to these writers the principles of quic quid plantatour solo solo credit is not part of our customary land law.

According to section 3 (miscellaneous provision) of the Land Use Act of 1978, “immovable property or lands included land, everything attached to the earth, and chattels real, but does not include minerals in the language of the property. Property and Conveyancing Law of Western Nigeria states that land includes land of any tenure, buildings or parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way) and other corporal hereditaments and an easement, right, privileged or benefit in, over, or derived from land.

  • Nwabueze (1982), while endorsing the above definitions, states that land does not only mean the ground and its subsoil but includes also all structures and objects, like buildings and tress standing on it.
  • Coker (1966) stated categorically that in any application of the term land includes building there on.

Supporting this view Olienu (1962) had stated: “the term land as understood in customary law has a wide application. It includes things on the soil which are employed with it as being part of the land by nature e.g rivers, streams, lakes, lagoons, growing trees like palmtrees cassava tree or as being artificially fixed to it like houses buildings and structures whatever it is also includes any estate, interest into or over the land denotes e.g.

  • The right to collect snail, herbs or to hurt on land.
  • From the discussion above, obviously the issues is far from resolved.
  • Suffice it so say that if the Obi and LIoyd’s views are accepted, then there may exist a situation in which a building or other structure vest in one person, while the ground vests in another person.

This will certainly create some problems since the owner who in law has a superior title may be deprived of the benefit of making full use of his land as he wishes where someone to whom he has granted an occupational right builds a house during the subsistence of the agreement is held to remain the owner of the house at the determination of the agreement.

For this reason, the views expressed by Coker, Olienu and Nwabueze are to be preferred with the restriction that where landlord and the builder of the house on the land have evidenced a contrary intention such intention should be given effect, in such a case, if land lord and a house builder agree that ownership of house shall continue to vest in the landlord, then the house builder should continue to retain ownership of the building but will be obliged to remove it at the instance of the landlord and pay compensation to the landlord for any damage done to the land.

In Nigeria, land takes up importance as a commodity for daily use for many purposes. For several decades, land has continued to influence the lives of Nigerians socially, economically and politically. In the process of using the land, complex set of relationships has emerged among groups.

  1. The more complex various Nigerian communities become, and the more established are the physical manifestations of development, the more friction and clashes are likely over rights in land.
  2. This shows that in Nigeria, as in other developing countries generally, land constitutes a sensitive asset whose administration must be based on meaningful policy decisions to benefit most Nigerians.

Land occupies a unique place in the development process of any individual or society. The supply of useable land is however limited. No society therefore exists without a regulation of some kind peculiar to it to rationalize the mode of ownership and the use of land.

What is the law of land class 8?

The Fundamental Law of the land is called the constitution. The reason behind it is that they are superior to the ordinary laws enacted by the parliament.

What is the law of the land quizlet?

The Constitution is the ‘supreme law of the land.’ The U.S. Constitution has lasted longer than any other country’s constitution. It establishes the basic principles of the Untied States government.