The difference between a self-governing colony and a dominion In 1949 Newfoundland became a part of Canada. Before 1949 it was a separate country. This Wikipedia article says in 1907 Newfoundland made the transition from the status of a "self-governing colony" to that of a "dominion". A "dominion" is what Canada called itself before 1982. As a "dominion", Canada was an independent country, which in particular sent and received ambassadors, etc., except that the basic constitutional law of the country was an act of the British Parliament, and so could be altered only by the British Parliament. I don't know whether that is how Newfoundland was organized when it was a "dominion". The Wikipedia article suggests the concept of "dominion" is defined in the Statute of Westminster, but that statute did not exist until the 1930s, so it could not have governed whatever it was that happened in 1907. What is the difference between the status of Newfoundland before 1907 and the status after 1907?
I'll be referencing the "Minutes of proceedings of the Colonial Conference, 1907" throughout (600+ pg. PDF). The page numbers refer to the ones printed on the page instead of any software page number. It seems that @owjburnham's comment is essentially correct, it is mainly a shift in terminology. It came from a desire to further distinguish self-governing from non-self-governing colonies (or "Crown Colonies" as the official term seems to have been). As such, "Dominion" came to be (re)defined as "self-governing colony." During the 1907 Colonial Conference, Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward of New Zealand opined the following [pg. 30-31]: I think the term "Colony," so far as our countries are concerned, ought to cease, and that that term ought to apply to the Crown Colonies purely, and that those of us who are not at present known as Dominions or Commonwealths, should be known as States of the Empire, or some other expressive word, so as to make a distinction as between the Crown Colonies and the self-governing Dependencies. He also stated the following [pg. 48]: I assume that in this resolution New Zealand, now known by the term "Colony," will be included in the expression "Dominion," which I think it ought to be. Awkwardly, this was right at the end of the day and no one reacted to this statement as the conference adjourned. As the participants were deciding upon the structure and participants of subsequent conferences, there is a lengthy discussion of the exact term to be used to refer to the self-governing colonies [pg. 78-90]. Near its conclusion, the chairman states the following [pg. 89]: We agreed [...] that instead of the word "Colonies" we should use the word "Dominions;" but is it sufficiently defined if we use the word "Dominions" alone throughout? [...] I would suggest that we might take what is really the official term "the Dominions beyond the seas" in the first place where it occurs [...] and any other reference to it in the course of the Resolution might very well be "Dominions." That would make it absolutely clear what we mean by the expression in the first place. Thus, the conference opted for an implicit rather than explicit definition of "Dominion". The designation of Newfoundland as a Dominion in 1907 is just a reconciliation of the fact it was a self-governing colony and the new understanding that the word "Dominion" was to mean roughly that. There was no effective change of status. An explicit definition of "Dominion" would not come until the Balfour Declaration of 1926. Ironically, Newfoundland played no role in deciding the term to be used for itself as its Prime Minister only arrived on Day 4 of the conference [pg. 87].
Only with the approval of Congress. An agreement between states is called an "interstate compact" (a variety of existing compacts are listed in the link). The federal government can also unilaterally create an independent agency with authority in some states, but not others such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Appalachian Regional Commission. The relevant parts of the Constitution are Article I, Section 10, which states: 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Also relevant are Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. and Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Westphalian Sovereignty Israel has decided that this is the law in Israel and they are the only one who gets a say in this. The concept of the modern nation-state can trace its origins to the Treaty of Westphalia (possibly - there is disagreement among historians and political scientists but for our purposes we'll just let them get on with it) which ended the 30-years war. This was a complex and dynamic conflict of which one of the contentious issues was who had the right to determine the laws in a particular territory, particularly religious laws - the local prince/king/duke etc. or the Emporer. Long story short - it wasn't the Emporer. This is embodied in Article 2(1) of the UN charter: The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. That is, Israel and only Israel gets to decide what the law is in Israel. Which is to say, that what the law is in Israel is down to internal Israeli politics. Israel is a democracy so this is down to democratic politics. International law only allows involvement when the actions of a sovereign state (UN member or otherwise) infringe on the peace and stability of other sovereign states. I realise that there is a whole area of discussion here but suffice it to say that the internal operations of the UN are political rather than legal. However, laws on marriage in Israel seem unlikely to have international peace and security implications.
An Act is what's called Primary Legislation, where as Regulations are Secondary Legislation. An Act of Parliament is a law that both Houses of Parliament have agreed to and which has received Royal Assent. These Acts may include provisions for secondary legislation which is law created by ministers (or other bodies) under powers given to them by the Act. The UK's Legislation website says this: 'Primary legislation' is the term used to describe the main laws passed by the legislative bodies of the UK e.g. Acts of the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly. It also includes Acts passed by historical parliaments, other primary legislation for Northern Ireland and Church of England Measures (legislation for the established church in England passed by the General Synod of the Church of England). These types of legislation are sometimes referred to as 'statutes' and the term 'the statute book' refers to the whole of the statute law currently in force. Whereas: 'Secondary legislation' (also called 'subordinate legislation') is delegated legislation made by a person or body under authority contained in primary legislation. Typically, powers to make secondary legislation may be conferred on ministers, on the Crown, or on public bodies. For example, the Office of Communications (OFCOM) is given such powers by the Communications Act 2003. The main types of secondary legislation are Statutory Instruments, Statutory Rules and Orders, Church Instruments. There are three main types of UK Statutory Instrument: 'Orders', 'Regulations', 'Rules'. However, there is no limit imposed on the descriptions that may be given to Statutory Instruments. Other examples include 'Scheme', 'Direction' and 'Declaration'. Different types of instruments serve different functions, but they all have the same legislative force. Prior to 1948, when the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 came into force, the equivalent instruments were known as 'Statutory Rules and Orders'. For example, Part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 allows for the making of secondary legislation regulations such as (the now revoked) The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 Secondary Legislation is still subject to Parliamentary scrutiny as it must be approved (the affirmative process) or not rejected (the negative process - and the one applicable to the majority of SI) by Parliament.
See Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, para. 272 OPCA litigants who advance these schemes will often focus on certain aspects of court formalities. Like Mr. Meads, they may scrutinize the court for some hidden indication of its true nature. A strange but common belief is that a flag with yellow or gold thread ‘fringes’ “denotes a military jurisdiction, not common law”. In R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 at para. 2, 261 N.B.R. (2d) 199, Chief Justice Drapeau of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected a motion by Lindsay “... removing the gold‑fringed Canadian flag that has adorned the Court of Appeal’s hearing room for years ...”. This motion, and the argument that “[t]here is no lawful reason for a Canadian flag to be present other than the regular statutory authorized flag” was frivolous and vexatious: para. 9.
In the example given, both elements must be established. This is the most common meaning of the word &quot;and&quot; in a statute or rule or contract or other writing, but there are times when &quot;and&quot; does not have that meaning. One must always determine the meaning from context on a case by case basis. Words do not have a single universal meaning in all contexts for legal purposes. This variation by context in the meaning of words for legal purposes is especially frequent in countries with common law legal systems based upon the English legal system such as the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and India to have situations where a word often means one thing in one legal context and another thing in different legal contexts. This is because the governing statutes and case law are written on a piecemeal basis by many different people with no one in charge of maintaining stylistic uniformity, over a very long period of time (often centuries). In countries like those of Continental Europe, Latin America and much of Asia and Africa, which have what are called &quot;civil law&quot; systems, that are based on European civil codes, there are comprehensive codifications of the basic laws of the land that are drafted by experts all at the same time, and amended only with great deliberation and care, and these codes tend to use a word more consistently in most contexts than common law legislatures and judges do, although even then, this principle is not absolute.
The US has kept the original meaning More or less. The word entered English from Old French around the turn of the 14th century and meant a person appointed to handle the financial or legal affairs of another. Two branches developed, a common attorney which leads to the modern concept of an attorney under a power of attorney, and an attorney at law. These were qualified people who prepared briefs for barristers in the Common Law courts. The attorneys equivalents in the Chancellery courts were called solicitors. When the courts were merged in the UK in the late 19th century, the term solicitor was kept and attorney was abolished. At about the same time, the courts in the US merged but the Americans kept attorney and abandoned solicitor. Solicitor is still used in some parts of the US to refer to a government lawyer, particularly in the office of solicitor general. The US as well as Commonwealth countries have both an Attorney General and a Solicitor General. The AG is usually a politician and the chief law officer of the government. The SG is usually a civil servant and represents the government in court; for example, when the USA needs to appear in SCOTUS it’s the SG that does it.
What a country claims to be the case certainly doesn't guarantee what is the case. The constitution (at least as of 2012) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) says: Article 67. Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee the conditions for the free activities of democratic political parties and social organizations. Needless to say, North Korea is not generally considered a bastion of free speech. The People's Republic of China has a similar provision in its constitution. When we get to countries where those outside the country consider there to be some level of freedom of speech, there are still restrictions. In the UK, the Official Secrets Act makes it a crime for any person to republish leaked classified information. Germany makes it illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. Until 2013, Canada made it illegal for a person to use telecommunications to say something that would expose people to hatred for some reason covered by antidiscrimination law. Many, many countries criminalize child pornography. Many, many countries have copyright laws. "Free speech" does not mean "you can say whatever you want and the government can't stop you." It means "as a general rule, the government can't restrict what you're saying because they don't like it." I am unaware of any country with a functional government with unfettered freedom of speech.