Eth 321 - the Role and Functions of Law

The Role and Functions of Law

Kylie R Davis

ETH/321

July 3rd, 2016

Brian La Hargoue

The Role and Functions of Law

        The roles and functions of law in today’s society are very important if we want our society to be able to function properly and hold any wrong doers accountable for their actions. To be able to do this we will take a look at federal courts and how they differentiate from stat courts along with the concept of judicial review, judicial restraint and judicial activism. Not only are the roles in functions of law important in our society but they play a crucial part in our workplace environments as well. Not every case needs to go to court though and that’s why we have in place various forms of alternative dispute resolution, or ADR.

                                Federal and State Courts

        In the United States the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law that created a federal system of government in order to ensure that power was shared between federal and state governments. Federalism has helped to ensure that each state of government has their own systems of court. Federal courts usually cover larger cases that cannot be settled in state courts such as disputes between two or more states, bankruptcy, and admiralty law. State courts handle civil cases and criminal cases for each state so the laws and regulations vary by state. Since state courts handle more cases than federal courts do, they have different types of courts such as circuit courts, superior courts, city/town courts, appeal courts, and in some states like mine tax courts. This way the state courts can help keep smaller less important cases from taking up valuable time in the federal courts.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power to review acts of the legislative and executive branches of government unconstitutional. “Even if Congress delegates power under the most gossamer of standards, such as "necessary" or "fair" or "just and reasonable," judicial review is still useful as a check on executive discretion.” (“DELEGATION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW,” 2010). Of course not everyone will agree with decisions made by the courts which is where judicial restraint and judicial activism fall into place. “Judicial restraint" is not a well-defined term. Sometimes it is just an all-purpose term of praise for judges who have reached decisions that the speaker likes, in the same way that "judicial activism" is often an epithet used for decisions that the speaker dislikes.” (“ORIGINALISM, CONSERVATISM, AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT,” 2011). Then there is judicial activism which is described in our text book as “those who think the power should be used whenever the needs of society justify it” (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd, Morehead. 2013. p72).