What Is The Difference Between Legal And Ethical

Legal means anything allowed by laws, regardless of the morality.

Ethics in general means anything allowed by morality, regardless of the legislation.

However, where laws observe the morality, an ethical conduct is also a legal conduct.

Ethics in a particular profession means the right way of conduct according to the peculiar morality of that profession.

Violation of laws is punished by the state, i.e. fine, imprisonment etc.
However, punishment for violation of ethics is often limited to negative reaction of the concerning people.

It is so until the rules of ethics get codified and become effective as a law.

What Is the Difference Between Business And Economy

Economy is the art of saving money. This is apparent in its ethymology from the Greek language:

Oikonomia means "household management"

Whereas, business is the art of making money. This is what "businesspersons" are busy about. Business is an initiative by which the entreprenour aims making profit.

This is why you save your money flying in economy class with lower services, while you may make more money flying in business class with the chance to meet wealthier passengers. The risk taken in the second choice is called venture.

What Is The Difference Between Property and Assets

Property is a legal term, while assets is an accounting term.

Only persons (individuals or corporate persons) can have "property".

But a business, a store, an undertaking etc. may have "assets", regardless of having personality in terms of law. It may have its corporate personality or just be a part or a branch of a "person". In either case, it has its own assets, but it may be incapable of having "property".

Secondly, in daily language the word "property" first refers to "real property" and therefore sounds even more different than "assets". However, "personal property" and "intellectual property" are also included in the term "property" in technical view of the law.

So, the most remarkable difference between the two terms is the "owner", not the content.

All That We Need In The Constitution Is Right There In The Text

My essay on sufficiency of written constitution, written for online course

Constitutional Law
by Akhil Reed Amar

My task was as follows:

"All that we need in the Constitution is right there in the text." Attack or defend this statement with at least three distinct arguments, using specific examples to illustrate your points.

My essay:

I don't agree the suggestion "All that we need in the Constitution is right there in the text". It is too dogmatic, shortsighted and incoherent, because a constitution must be much more than what is written in the text so that it can overcome every challenge that may arise by time, by unexpected occasions and by any interpretation that was not contemplated by its authors.

Constitution's Spirit Against Text

A written constitution reflects the idea behind foundation of a state. But that reflection is not the idea itself; the written constitution is only tangible appearance, an outcome of the idea. As in United Kingdom, a country can be governed by an unwritten constitution, whereas there are many unconstitutional countries that have written so-called constitutions just for show. Therefore, the written constitution must be used as a means of proof, commitment and record with regard to the founding spirit but must not be and cannot used for turning its underlying spirit into a fixed document of letters.

In particular, the US constitution is not considered an intellectual product of particular person or persons.[1] Though it is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, he admits that he only penned the independence declaration, a fundamental constitutional instrument, the declaration itself was in the air among the minds of the people that gather to found the USA. Therefore, US Constitution must be considered the common approach for political and civil matters, which was embodied for the purpose of popular dissemination, not textual limitation.

A Constitution For Future Challenges

Even there could be a way to perfectly transfer the ideas into letters, that would be a conveyance of that time only. That would cause great lack in responding to the coming challenges in several aspects.

Considering the fact that the technology got advanced in last 200 hundred years more than the total of the ages before, one can see it is highly critical for the Constitution to be able to adapt to every new development in science. Does the constitution's text really able to handle the matters of broadcast, internet, electronic voting, cyber battles, Wikileaks etc? Right to make propaganda through web, might not be inferred from the constitution if the constitional freedom of expression was handled literally. For example, the frequency of the election has changed by the time, owing to the advancement in the means of transportation and communication.[2]

Aside from the technology, many manners of social life has also tremendously changed since adoption of the Constitution; not only in national but also international level. Much before now, people were fighting duels, killing each other on personal, sometimes unimportant matters of honor -in their sense of dignity of that time. Or KKK could freely conduct great rallies on streets, defending their rights. Not only the technological tools but also social acceptances are advanced, mostly in liberal way, by time. This is why a paper, formed of constant propositions cannot be used as a recipe to solve every social problem. Otherwise, the right to information and even free press could not be derived from the constitutional provisions concerning the freedom of speech.[3] Freedom of getting information from the government, without giving any reasoning was something that perhaps could not be imagined during the times the constiution's words were shaped. Today it is possible by handling today's social needs through the constitutional mentality, not the text itself.

Power of Amendment Presuming Imperfect Nature of Text

Though there are several checks, the legislative body's power to amend[4] the constitution itself implies that what is written in the Constitution may be wrong; it may not be the true Constitution, but a text that misinterprets the standpoint that constituted the USA. Therefore 'all we need in the constitution' is not the text itself, but the political will that had led to the written constitution and new interpretations of or constructions from that political will is what makes the later amendments legitimate.

_______________________________________________________________________

[1] This is why it begins with the wording "We, the people" and as Mr. Amar mention in the first lecture, the noun "we" does not refer to the undersigners; it refers to the people of the USA.

[2] Mr. Amar in the early lectures had stated that the House elections were held less frequently in the first years, because it took time to make elections and send the elected person to the capital city. It was a common practice of that time as a result the level of the technology by then.

[3] In Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 15–16 (1978) decision, Supreme Court Justice Steven's dissenting opinion later allowed the right to obtain information from government by wide interpretation of freedom of expression for the press. Mr. Amar made reference to this case in his lecture on Supreme Court's contribution to the constitutional law.

[4] Though the 'amendments' are the supplements to the Constitution, I here refer both to those additions to the Constitution and also the modification on the original deed.

Inferring The Right To Wear Hat From US Constitution

My essay on inferring the right to wear hat from the US Constitution, written for online course

Constitutional Law
by Akhil Reed Amar

My task was as follows:

Suppose you had to defend the right to wear a hat—how would you do it? What kind of arguments would you make?

My essay:

The right to wear a hat is not expressly provided for in the constitution but it implicitly stems from several provisions of the Constitution.

First of all, the preamble of the constitution says "...secure the blessings of liberty", where liberty is not limited to national independence. It refers to the people's way of living in every aspect. The fact that the constitution, unlike many other countries of the time, does not require any certain religion or life style for being president, senator or representative implies that this liberty covers every aspect of life style, doubtlessly including the wearings. I emphasize on this aspect of freedom, because the most common barrier, if any, against wearing a hat or any other choice of wearing relates to religious concerns.

In connection with and addition to the foregoing argument, the first amendment expressly states that US ctiziens are free to exercise their religion and they have freedom of speech. Wearing a hat, may also be a way of expressing oneself's ideas. The more an individual wears different from the regular style the more protesting that person would look and that may be the point that individual is trying to make by wearing a particular type of hat.

The fourth amendment states that no person's properties can be subject to unreasonable seizure, which in practice results that a government officer must have to find the reason for disallowing the people from wearing hat; the individuals do not have to find a special reason to defend their immunity about wearing hat as a way of possessing a property.

The nineth amendment says enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people. Given the fact that people were wearing hat even before foundation of the United States, and there is no express provision that later prohibited hats, people's right to wear hat was already recognized by the nineth amendment. So, it is a constitutional right to wear hat under the nineth amendment.

Also, according to the Declaration of Independence, as a major US constitutional text, people's unalienable rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In her or his way in pursuits of happiness, one may enjoy the right to do anything that makes oneself feel better, to the extent it exceeds to the same right of other people. Wearing hat may well be one of the ways to enjoy these rights in pursuits of happiness, if it makes the person feel better and does not harm the counter rights of other individuals or the public order.

In addition to the written sources of the Constitution, this freedom can be inferred from the precedences of the Supreme Court, which has accepted many right that were not clearly mentioned or even implied in the Constitution but commonly adopted by the states, such as right to free advocate. Considering the practice of the states all over the territory, Supreme Court would see this is a right practically recognized by all states, so it is already a requirement of the Constitution that does not limit itself with its own text.

Lastly, Abraham Lincoln, the iconic image of the constitution, and deliverer of the Getsyburg Address, used to wear stove pipe hat, so anyone in the country must be allowed to wear it!

Murder vs Homicide

What Is The Difference Between Law And Act

Attorney-Lawyer Difference