| The laws of the United States are hierarchical in structure. There are Federal laws, which are nationwide, and State laws, as well as local laws. When there is a conflict between the laws, the Federal law trumps State law. This is ability of Federal law to override State (or local law) is referred to as preemption. The laws consist of two forms, 1) statues, which are the written laws; and 2) case law, the law created by court decisions. On the Federal level, the statutes are those written and passed as bills by Congress. Through the legal process (court cases, criminal cases or civil lawsuits) the courts interpret what the written law means. When determining what the law is, the statutes and the case law must be read together to understand the meaning of each. |
||
| For example, a (hypothetical) law may give certain rights to artists who creates fine-art only in the form of “drawings.” An issue in the case may be what exactly constitutes a drawing; what is the meaning of the word "drawing." Suppose that the artist made what she calls a drawing by programming a computer to depict a picture on a screen. To determine whether the law applies to the artist’s work, it must be determined whether the work is actually a drawing within the meaning of the word "drawing" used in the statute. If the work is not such a drawing, then the law doesn’t apply and the artist doesn’t have the right that is given in the law. |
 |
|
| The court will look at various factors to determine if the work is a drawing. The court (the judge) will research definitions of the word. The judge may also look at records made when the law was still in the bill process, to determine what the makers of the law meant by using the word "drawing" in the written law. Taking these into account, the judge determines if the work is a drawing under the intended meaning of the law, and if it does, whether the law applies to the situation. Let’s say our hypothetical case is called Artist vs. Z. Though sometimes unfairly derided as judge-made law, this process, results in what is called the common law, and is a critical part of the legal structure in the U.S. Written laws are not, and probably cannot be, precise enough to consider all possibilities that may arise in real life. The courts are needed to determine these details, and in the ideal circumstances, apply them fairly. Sometimes when an apparently unfair result occurs, let’s say that our artist’s work is determined not to be a drawing. The hypothetical court looked at the legislative records and determined that "drawing" was meant to be strictly hand-drawn works made by a pen, pencil or brush on paper. The artist loses the case because the work was not covered by the definition in the statute. In the future, if other courts need to determine what the definition of "drawing" is, they will look to the decision made in Artist vs. Z. The case law is built up over time, creating various definitions of what the written law means and how it should be applied to various situations. Because of this, it is important to consider case law chronologically–the most recent decision is generally the most valid interpretation of the law. It may seem unfair that a result may turn on a narrow definition, but the fault may not lie with the judge, but rather with the scope of the law itself. In such a situation, there may be a need to amend a law, to make the definition of "drawing" more inclusive, for example. However, this is a job for the legislature, Congress, State Legislatures, and local governments; a judge cannot alter the written law, but only interpret and apply it. As a result of public attention, a law might be changed to eliminate future unfair situations. Individuals may choose to bring these types of issues to the attention of their political representatives, or otherwise engage in the State's political process, or perhaps become active on the national level. |
||
| More: The Courts and Precedent | ||
