"No person who may hereafter fight a duel, assist in the same as second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge therefor, shall hold any office in the State, for a period of ten years...."
-Arkansas state constitution, Article 19, Section 2
Why would this rule from the Arkansas State Constitution, adopted in 1874, be seen as a statutory law?
a. It is a fundamental law of lasting importance that should not be changed***
b. It is a law that the state legislature should pass but not put in the constitution
c. It is a miscellaneous provision that no longer has any practical effect and does not need to be in the constitution
d. It is part of a preamble that has no legal force and could remain in the document to help explain the constitution's purpose
I am having a little trouble figuring out the answer
I agree with your answer.
http://www.hg.org/statutory-law.html
To determine the correct answer, we need to understand the concept of statutory law and how it relates to the given rule from the Arkansas State Constitution.
Statutory law refers to laws that are passed by a legislative body, such as a state legislature or Congress. These laws are written and enacted by the legislative process and are typically contained in statutes or codes. Statutory laws can be modified or repealed by the same legislative body that passed them.
Now let's examine the options given:
a. It is a fundamental law of lasting importance that should not be changed: This option suggests that the rule is a fundamental law that should not be changed. However, considering that it is a part of the Arkansas State Constitution, which is a constitution rather than a statute, it is less likely that it would be seen as a statutory law.
b. It is a law that the state legislature should pass but not put in the constitution: This option suggests that the rule should be passed by the state legislature as a standalone law rather than being included in the constitution. However, the fact that it is already a part of the Arkansas State Constitution indicates that it is not solely a statutory law.
c. It is a miscellaneous provision that no longer has any practical effect and does not need to be in the constitution: This option states that the provision is a miscellaneous provision and it no longer has practical effect. While this could be the case, the given extract does not provide enough information to confirm whether this provision is still applicable or not. Therefore, it is not a suitable answer.
d. It is part of a preamble that has no legal force and could remain in the document to help explain the constitution's purpose: This option suggests that the rule is part of a preamble and does not have any legal force. However, the given extract is not a preamble, but rather a specific section of the Arkansas State Constitution, indicating that this is not the correct answer.
Based on the analysis above, the most suitable answer would be:
a. It is a fundamental law of lasting importance that should not be changed.
Although it is not explicitly mentioned whether this rule should be a statute or a constitution, the fact that it is entrenched in the state constitution suggests that it is considered as a fundamental law meant to have lasting importance and should not be easily changed.