If judges interpret the law, does that mean they are law makers?

The Bible says in Ezra 7, 11: Now this is the copy of the formula which King Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest, the scribe, learned in the words of the commandments of the LORD and His statutes to Israel. The scribed, contribute always been important figures in a state device the law and possessing power by explaining to man what God meant in his words. As first year law students learn common land legal philosophy finds its sources amongst other(a)s in cases and statutes. So by the very definition of law, cases ar part of law. As settle nuclear number 18 the originators of cases they do in fact locomote to the law. Thus the question whether adjudicate are law removers seems to be ubiquitous in the light that they contribute to the existence of a very source of law. The question though arises from where do they pull in their wisdom. The question has to be limited to learn the thin crinkle between interpretation of statutes and the creation of law. This quite an abstract question, which finds some(prenominal) points of intersection with the discipline of government or public law, whitethorn well be dealt with by illustrating a variety of cases. In the 1970s Parliament passed the Domestic Violence and matrimonial transactions Act (1976).

Section 1 empowered judges to make various protective posts one of which had the effect of excluding the other political party from the matrimonial home [s.1(1)(c)]. The courts however decided in B.v.B and in Cantliff v. Jenkins that the Act did not empower County Court judges to override any property rights in the home. No exception order could be made against a man (or a wom! an) with a proprietary interest in the home, no take how unpeaceful he (or she) was. This interpretation of s.1(1)(c) seriously undermined the Act. This is... If you want to bug out a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper