A commentary is a remark or statement on a particular subject or problem. It is acceptable for the individual conducting the analysis to express their personal views on the subject at hand. For instance, a commentary on land law is a criticism of the law based on the commentator's own understanding of the subject. Williams and Barbu (2009) developed a reflection on the meaning of the State of Liberia Constitution. The two writers created their interpretation to serve as a reference for those who might want to understand the current statutory laws that govern Liberia. On the same note, the commentary attempts to analyze the meaning of cases through the application of the authors’ terms. Therefore, this part of the paper shall explore Williams & Barbu’s commentary and encompass my personal understanding of the concept under discussion.
The commentary by Williams & Barbu (2009) does not consider the accuracy of the interpretation of the cases on the meaning of the constitution. They propose to discern the meaning of the cases by not taking into consideration on whether the cases were rightly decided by the relevant courts and authorities (Williams & Barbu, 2009). Thus, this implies that for one to interpret a particular case, he should carry an assessment on its past ruling to discern why the court chose to stand with its reasoning that is rooted in the constitution. Consequently, if a case is vague or contradictory, it calls for a prescriptive evaluation since it is not probable to describe it without discerning its qualities.
A commentary calls for one to contrast a law with something else so as to comprehend its descriptive requirements. For instance, the individuals who may wish to understand the notion that Liberia is unitary, they have to contrast it with federalism. Therefore, this shows that many commentary authors assess the similarities and dissimilarities of law on how it’s practiced in other countries without offering a normative evaluation of either.
Mandatory and persuasive authority
Mandatory authority denotes to conventions, cases, or statutes that the court must follow due to their requisite nature on the court’s prerogative. It calls for lower courts to abide by verdicts made by upper courts in the same dominion. Individuals who make decisions on what constitutes mandatory authority seek for information on the law making groups that issue a legal ruling on a particular prerogative. Thus, the aspect of jurisdiction encompasses fortitude on whether a subject that arises in a correct terrestrial setting is administered by the state or federal law. Therefore, this part of the paper shall explore Lippman’s article so as to provide a comparison and contrast between mandatory and persuasive authority.
Mandatory authority calls for one to make judgments on the relationship of certainties and other issues on statuses on the delinquent that is under examination. According to Lippman (2016), the authority must be trailed under the code of “stare decisis,” unless the law court makes a resolution that the changed situation merits a dissimilar conclusion. The code of “stare decisis” uplifts composure of the legal structure and delivers contrivances for people to envisage the upshot of their comportment.
Persuasive authority connotes to conventions, cases, secondary sources, or statutes that a court may follow but it is not obliged to act on them (Lippman, 2016). Thus, this implies that a presiding from a court in alternative prerogative or a junior court in the same dominion gives rise to a persuasive authority. Researchers seek to view the connotation of persuasive authority in circumstances where mandatory power does not exist in a specific prerogative or when they wish to search for opinions as to why standing practices should be changed.
References
Lippman, G. (2016). Will Police Body Cameras be a Mandatory Subject of Bargaining in Florida? Labor and Employment Law. The Florida Bar Journal, 57-61.
Williams, D. & Barbu, J. (2009). A Commentary on the Meaning of the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia. Journal of Constitutional Democracy, 1-512.
