Application of Legal Equality

Normally, the law presupposes that citizens can satisfy their basic needs, precisely because it grants other citizens private property rights over the instruments with which they can be satisfied. This is the essential point of the discussion on the law against food theft: since citizens must eat to live, a law prohibiting the theft of food must presuppose that all citizens have legal means to obtain enough food to survive, otherwise the law will become a crime of status that violates the rule of law. And since anti-theft laws are partly constitutive of property rights, it follows that any society that creates private property rights over the resources necessary to satisfy the basic needs of life must count those resources as part of its social minimum.135 Such laws can punish individuals who have taken advantage of them to impose a semblance of equality. An alternative to this policy would be to introduce a university admission initiative for the blind that does not include information on race, ethnicity, gender and religion. It is extremely important to hold governments accountable to the law for this fundamental human right and for the fundamental principle of equal treatment. The rule of law as a regulatory principle for political states has the power to generate at least derealizable (if not absolute) demands for their obedience. The discussion so far has revealed a perhaps unintuitive feature of this request: it doesn`t have to be a request from the state to change anything in its legal system. Rather, it could be a request to the state to address the unequal social circumstances that make its laws offensive from the point of view of the rule of law. Another extremely dangerous consequence of non-compliance with this principle is the possibility for corrupt leaders to abuse their position of power. It is therefore essential to apply the law equally to all people, regardless of their status. As far as the law is concerned, no distinction should be made for politicians, diplomats, law enforcement agencies, lawyers, large corporations or influential individuals. Second, there is an inherent tension between freedom and equality. The problem is, in simple terms, that the exercise of unlimited freedom by one person may interfere with another person`s legitimate expectation of equal treatment and vice versa.

For example, the Supreme Court`s decision that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racially restrictive housing contracts is based on the principle that society`s collective interest in racial equality may outweigh an individual`s freedom of contract.18 In the broadest sense, the relationship between the two can be understood as a zero-sum game in which transactions lead to winners and Losers.19 This formulation, freedom versus equality underlies a long-standing philosophical debate, and the search for balance continues to shape our political and legal system. We continue to provide all the legal services we provided prior to the pandemic. To slow the spread of COVID-19, our offices are closed to the public and we see clients by appointment. If you are a current customer, please use the contact information provided to you. If you need legal aid, please click on the following link: It is particularly discouraged to base our moral assessment of a legal institution on the evil intent of those who created it for two reasons. First, legal institutions are usually created by the combined actions of a number of agents, who may not all have acted for the same reasons. Laws and the institutions that create them are products of politics, which in turn is an area of compromise; The fact that only one legislator voted in favour of a bill does not mean that this legislature shared intentions with others who voted in favour of it or wished for its consequences.96 Moreover, social choice theorists have shown that legislative outcomes may not reliably follow even the simple preferences of legislative majorities.97 ABLE is currently accepting candidates for our associate summer program. 2022, which will provide law students with experience, feedback and concrete legal aid. The principle that the law must be universal – that it must apply equally to all – is a fundamental requirement of legal morality, coupled with the ideal of the rule of law.3 But many fear that this generality, the “formal” equality of law, supports substantial inequalities in a hierarchical world where people have different abilities. Foundations and fundamental interests. This goes back at least as far as Rousseau, who criticized the law itself for anchoring and legitimizing inequalities: “all the inequalities that prevail today.

will eventually become permanent and legitimate through the establishment of goods and laws. 8 The first part describes the egalitarian conception of the rule of law and then gives an account of what it means for a law to be general. For a law to be general in the sense of the rule of law, it must be justified on public grounds, understood as expressive thinking (Part A.I.). To be justified by public reasons means to be justified by reasons that any person concerned by law can reasonably accept by considering himself or herself an equal member of the political community. To determine whether this criterion is met, consider the social significance of a law – this is the “expressive” part of the report (Part I.B.). The part ends with an intervention in some recent debates in philosophy of law with a new presentation of how the social meaning of a law can be found (Part I.C.). This party`s argument does not support this conclusion. All laws that create a legal privilege that not everyone can qualify for are not insulting. Consider the law that prohibits blind people from driving. This law does not offend the blind; The public reason for each of the three points of view is obvious. In particular, the public justification from the point of view of the second person is obvious: blind people may consider the law prohibiting them from driving to be binding because they have reasons not to endanger the life and property of others through dangerous activity if they do not have the physical capacity to do so safely.

Similarly, voting is a dangerous activity. Those who vote badly can contribute to immense human suffering by allowing ruinous wars, environmental degradation, economic collapse and many other evils; Those who are unable to do so safely have reasons to stay away from elections. The main task of a theory of legal equality is to design a test for non-discriminatory classifications. This chapter argues that no version of a “theory per se” can be satisfactory. More attractive are tests based on relevance, although they give a circularity that results from the temptation to imply the purpose of a classification from the conditions of the classification itself. This hazard can be overcome by increasing the level of examination of the objective and the correspondence between classification and purpose. However, we need good reasons to increase the level of control over legislation, and these reasons need to be incorporated into a general theory of what makes classification discriminatory. An intuitively justified answer to this question seems to be that a classification is tainted by certain false grounds of discrimination in the legislation, particularly when the legislation is based on prejudice, hostility and stereotypes.

Wealthy individuals, influential corporations, those working in the legal profession or law enforcement, and those involved in organized crime, among others, can potentially use their position to engage in bribery and corruption.