Civic Education is the study of theoretical, political and practical aspects of citizenship, as well as its rights and duties. It includes the study of civil law and civil code, and the study of government with attention to the role of citizens - as opposed to external factors - in the operation and oversight of government.
Black's Law Dictionary - 4th Edition
The word jurisprudence derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law." In the United States jurisprudence commonly means the philosophy of law. Legal philosophy has many aspects, but four of them are the most common:
1. The first and the most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law. Law school textbooks and legal encyclopedias represent this type of scholarship.
2. The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences.
3. The third type of jurisprudence seeks to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural basis of a particular legal concept.
4. The fourth body of jurisprudence focuses on finding the answer to such abstract questions as "What is law?" and "How do judges (properly) decide cases?"
Schools of Jurisprudence
Formalism vs. Realism
Apart from different types of jurisprudence, different schools of jurisprudence exist. Formalism, or conceptualism, treats law like math or science. Formalists believe that a judge identifies the relevant legal principles, applies them to the facts of a case, and logically deduces a rule that will govern the outcome of the dispute. In contrast, proponents of legal realism believe that most cases before courts present hard questions that judges must resolve by balancing the interests of the parties and ultimately drawing an arbitrary line on one side of the dispute. This line, realists maintain, is drawn according to the political, economic, and psychological inclinations of the judge. Some legal realists even believe that a judge is able to shape the outcome of the case based on personal biases.
Positivists v. Naturalists
Apart from the realist-formalist dichotomy, there is the classic debate over the appropriate sources of law between positivist and natural law schools of thought. Positivists argue that there is no connection between law and morality and the the only sources of law are rules that have been expressly enacted by a governmental entity or court of law. Naturalists, or proponents of natural law, insist that the rules enacted by government are not the only sources of law. They argue that moral philosophy, religion, human reason and individual conscience are also integrate parts of the law.
Some have attempted to break down schools of positivism and naturalism (aka: anti-positivism) into 3 distinct groups:
1. exclusive legal positivists 1. According to exclusive legal positivists, what makes up the law is exclusively determined by social facts
2. anti-positivists 1. According to anti-positivists, moral facts determine the legal relevance of actions which people/institutions take
3. inclusive legal positivists
According to inclusive legal positivists, moral facts might play a part in determining the content of the law, but only if the relevant social practices assign them that role. Inclusive legal positivism is a form of positivism because it holds that social facts are the ultimate determinants of the content of the law, and that the law might be determined by social facts alone. But it allows that people might choose to have the content of their law depend on moral facts, as they seem to do, for example, when they prohibit punishment that is cruel, or confer rights to legal protections that are equal.
The above mentioned schools of legal thoughts are only part of a diverse jurisprudential picture of the United States. Other prominent schools of legal thought exist. These include but are not limited to:
Disclaimer: By entering this site, you agree that you are doing so at "your own risk". You agree that MOORISH MACK and its principal agents are not personally responsible for any inconveniences what so ever or the like. You are aware that MOORISH MACK and its principal agents are not personally responsible for any vendors that we contract with and sell their products or merchandise on this site. You are aware and agree that all purchases and sales made are final and MOORISH MACK and its principal agents are not personally responsible for any refunds. All products sold are to be sought refunds by the contractor.
Submission and Determination of Disputes to Arbitration: Every claim, dispute, controversy or difference arising out of, dealing with, relating to any sales et cetera, shall be submitted, heard and determined by arbitration and you waive your right to a class action suit against MOORISH MACK and its principal agents. Any qualified Moorish arbitrator the parties mutually agree to with an exception to any United States / UNITED STATES agents or agencies may be selected as the arbitrator.