Law generally does not have a clear-cut definition and it is most time interchange with constitution. It is suffice to say that the constitution is the grundnorm, where other norms derive their legal validity. The grundnorm being referred to as the grundnorm of a society is as posited by “Hans Kelson” who suppose there is even a bigger law that regulate other laws of the country. Hans Kelson supposed law to mean “systems of norms”, he subsequently said a law is valid if it has been created by a norm which itself has been created by a higher norm within the legal order.
Difference Between Law and Constitution
Constitution is popularly being refer to body of agreed rule or norm stating how a country will be govern, whilst, Law on the other hand are various laws of the country that governs every sphere of life of every inhabitant or segments in the country. The law in New York could be quite different to the law governing activities in Illinois, but despite their are varieties in law as such varieties range in content and context, the process in which these aforementioned laws will be carried out is being regulated by the constitution. There are numbers of things to be mention when it come to law and constitution, on this scale I suppose a broader view telling the difference in segments would be proper to look into, this is that we we look at five cogent different between this two
Difference between Law and Constitution
- Law Govern an aspect of every human culture while Constitution codifies all Laws : There are divers of laws out there that only focus on human behavior, these laws are like rules and regulations, a particular set of persons believe those things to be adhere to strictly, imagine being a native of New York (a new Yorker as they are called) there are some rules one is use to due to the metropolitan nature of such great city compare this to Illinois and you’d see there are rules and regulations guiding them. The rules are often interchangeably called laws but on the other hand is the constitution of a particular country, constitution does not stop at giving rules and regulations to a particular segmented-aspect of the society but instead extend it authonomy to seeing to the co-odification of series of laws made in all this different part of the country, it tries to unify the societies in one accord, now, series of state and local places are then governed as one constitutional nature. Using united Kingdom as case study, Cambridgeshire, Oxford shire, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, New castle are now being in one accord through a constitution
- Laws are made in a system, Constitution defines the System : saying laws are made in a system does not mean it’s made inside a Linux laptop or HP or del or your brain signals Mac book, absolutely No! The system we are trying to refer to in this case is a system of government. A system of government is what a country practiced like in the US, United state practice a Federal system with a presidential setting while Britain practice parliamentary system with a Prime Minister and a Monarch head and who happens to currently be queen of England (Queeen Elizabeth), who also double as the head of Common wealth of Nations head. Laws are made in form of statute, order, ordinances and so on in this system but constitution on the other is the main conceptualization through which the system lays it validity on, the constitution of a country could suppose a country to be federal like that of United States, France and also could suggest it to be Unitary like that of the United Kingdom, Israel and so on. To say few, when Laws are being made in a system it takes the constitution to give it the facade it needed to be up and running.
- Law can be relatively limited in scope while constitution can be wider : not that laws are really limited in scope as we suppose but it could still be relatively limited, this of course is that law might only extend to people staying in a particular urban area, a case study is London but still, do not extend to other places, the wider scope of a constitution in this situation is the recognition it attracts not only on local basis but even when it comes to internationals. Come to think of it, there are times coutries of the world relate with other nations through an ideology called international organization, these organizations which include UNO (UNITED NATION ORGANIZATION), EU (EUROPEAN UNION) OPEC (ORGANIZATION OF PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES ) to mention FEW, respects the constitution of their member state not a segmented or area-specified law of a particular nation, the ideology is that law could be narrow when it comes to scope due to that it’s rules people oblige to in societies rather that what could bring every all together as one society, so, at this point it is sacrosanct to say constitution is more wider in scope and ideology compare to law.
- LAWS ARE DYNAMIC AND IT AFFECT THE SHAPE OF CONSTITUTION : Laws being dynamic hinged on the fact that the world changes with time, and in different spheres of life ranging from social, economic, cultural, political to mention few, one can compare the kind of laws made during Winston Churchill (the then British Prime Minister) Era to that of the current world, absolute no! Or the laws during the time of President Roosevelt in United State. Law changes with time cause they are affected by the more and more global village the world become, the Era of massive civilization is gone, now, almost all countries of the world are civilised and not barbaric as once were, the changes in the Mordern world brings about new laws, new rules, new system and this could give rise to Mordern practice, this practice of course is a concept of the constitution definining how a country will be governed. Anyone should have it at the back of their mind that the world would stop at nothing to keep changing, so far there are new discoveries, new fasion taste as relate to food clothing even shelter (buildings and all) there have to be of course new laws that will govern this new norms for law not to be use as an instrument of fraudulent activities in the hand of those that can manipulate the old way to get their way through. Laws changes over time and it’s not enough to overlook how the dynamic nature of it affect the constitution in place.
- LAWS ARE VALID WHEN IT’S LEGAL VALIDITY IS DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION : There are many erroneous rules in the past, the killing of twin in some African countries seems to be part of what they’d believe to be laws then but with advancement in laws and the conceptualization of constitution, many measures has been put in place, the constitution has been suppose to be the grundnorm where other laws derived their legal validity from. Constitution to conclude is a higher norm which has series of laws in it.
Leave a Reply