2006-09-09 13:40:29 · 4 answers · asked by scattergrl 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The law is constantly evolving. There are principles of law which are deemed to be settled, which lawyers call "black letter" law...but those are often basic concepts, such as that an award arising in negligence requires a duty, a breach of that duty and damages resulting from the breach, or that murder is a crime.
Even at the constitutional level, principles of law are not as fixed as they might seem. A Supreme Court decision is generally thought of as the final word, but the Supreme Court can change its mind, as it did in the civil rights area - having first decided that segregation was legal, and then reversing itself.
If you refine your question, perhaps it can be more precisely answered.
2006-09-09 14:06:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they remain subject to review by the same or higher court.
There is a sort of 'judicial inertia' that says if a particular principle has been in place for a long time, it should be changed unless there is a very good reason. This is the doctrine of 'stare decisis', meaning to let the decision stand, unless there is a reason to change it.
2006-09-09 21:15:35 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they are not; in fact, there is in legal theory a doctrine called temporality that requires that the lawfulness of an act is only properly considered in terms of the laws in effect at the time of the act. For example, slave-traders in the 1800s were not guilty of crimes against humanity (in the legal sense), but slave-traders today certainly would be; their conduct is no different, but the legal milieu has evolved.
2006-09-09 21:11:48 · answer #3 · answered by BoredBookworm 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,my uncle the politicial says they change them to suit themselves so they can make more money or get better super.
2006-09-09 23:03:55 · answer #4 · answered by shygirl_4u 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋