USA Procedure law

Law of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Page move-protected
The United States Constitution, the supreme law of the United States
The United States Code, the codification of federal statutory law
The Code of Federal Regulations, the codification of federal administrative law
The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States

The law of the United States consists of many levels[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of constitutional acts of Congress, constitutional treaties ratified by Congress, constitutional regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary.

The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus preempting conflicting state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.[2] However, the scope of federal preemption is limited, because the scope of federal power is itself rather limited. In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite when one includes Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.[3] Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.[4][5]

At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.[6][7] However, U.S. law has diverged greatly from its English ancestor both in terms of substance and procedure, and has incorporated a number of civil law innovations.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 General overview
o 1.1 Sources of law
o 1.2 Constitutionality
* 2 American common law
* 3 Levels of law
o 3.1 Federal law
+ 3.1.1 Federal statutory enactment procedure
+ 3.1.2 Federal regulatory promulgation procedure
+ 3.1.3 Formulation of federal precedent
o 3.2 State law
+ 3.2.1 Attempts at "uniform" laws
o 3.3 Local law
* 4 Types of law
o 4.1 Procedural law
+ 4.1.1 Criminal procedure
+ 4.1.2 Civil procedure
o 4.2 Substantive law
+ 4.2.1 Criminal law
+ 4.2.2 Contract law
+ 4.2.3 Tort law
* 5 Odd exceptions
* 6 See also
o 6.1 Lists
* 7 References
* 8 Further reading
* 9 External links

[edit] General overview
[edit] Sources of law

In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law).[8] The most important source of law is the United States Constitution. All other law falls under and is subordinate to that document. No law may contradict the Constitution.
[edit] Constitutionality

Where Congress enacts a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, the Supreme Court may find that law unconstitutional and declare it invalid.[9]

Notably, a statute does not disappear automatically merely because it has been found unconstitutional; it must be deleted by a subsequent statute. Many federal and state statutes have remained on the books for decades after they were ruled to be unconstitutional. However, under the principle of stare decisis, no sensible lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statute, and any court that does so will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Conversely, any court that refuses to enforce a constitutional statute (where such constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases) will risk reversal by the Supreme Court.[10]
[edit] American common law

The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[11] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[12] and general search warrants.[13]

As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[14] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[15]

The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted "reception statutes" which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.[16] Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague.[17] Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form[18], such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers.[19]

Second, a small number of important British statutes in effect at the time of the Revolution have been independently reenacted by U.S. states. Two examples that many lawyers will recognize are the Statute of Frauds (still widely known in the U.S. by that name) and the Statute of 13 Elizabeth (the ancestor of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act). Such English statutes are still regularly cited in contemporary American cases interpreting their modern American descendants.[20]

However, it is important to understand that despite the presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law.[21] The reason is that although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other's rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings unless there is no American ruling on point, the facts and law at issue are nearly identical, and the reasoning is strongly persuasive.

Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary English cases. This was because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until the mid-19th century; lawyers and judges, as creatures of habit, used English legal materials to fill the gap.[22] But citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people.[23] The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910.[24] By 1879, one of the delegates to the California constitutional convention was already complaining: "Now, when we require them to state the reasons for a decision, we do not mean they shall write a hundred pages of detail. We [do] not mean that they shall include the small cases, and impose on the country all this fine judicial literature, for the Lord knows we have got enough of that already."[25]

Today, in the words of Stanford law professor Lawrence Friedman: "American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite a British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone; but current British law almost never gets any mention."[26] Foreign law has never been cited as binding precedent, but merely as a reflection of the shared values of Anglo-American civilization or even Western civilization in general.[27]
[edit] Levels of law
[edit] Federal law

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. Nearly all statutes have been codified in the United States Code. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations generally also carry the force of law under the Chevron doctrine. Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.

In the beginning, federal law traditionally focused on areas where there was an express grant of power to the federal government in the federal Constitution, like the military, money, foreign affairs (especially international treaties), tariffs, intellectual property (specifically patents and copyrights), and mail. Since the start of the 20th century, aggressive interpretations of the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution have enabled federal law to expand into areas like aviation, telecommunications, railroads, pharmaceuticals, antitrust, and trademarks. In some areas, like aviation and railroads, the federal government has developed a comprehensive scheme that preempts virtually all state law, while in others, like family law, a relatively small number of federal statutes (generally covering interstate and international situations) interacts with a much larger body of state law. In areas like antitrust, trademark, and employment law, there are powerful laws at both the federal and state levels that coexist with each other. In a handful of areas like insurance, Congress has enacted laws expressly refusing to regulate them as long as the states have laws regulating them (see, e.g., the McCarran-Ferguson Act).

Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general federal common law. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which in turn was enacted as part of the Constitution or after). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which the latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas, like maritime law,[28] has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English common law at the federal level (meaning that in those areas federal courts can continue to make law as they see fit, subject to the limitations of stare decisis).

The other major implication of the Erie doctrine is that federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue (and thus no federal supremacy issue) in a case. When hearing claims under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, federal trial courts must apply the statutory and decisional law of the state in which they sit, as if they were a court of that state,[29] even if they believe that the relevant state law is irrational or just bad public policy.[30] And under Erie, deference is one-way only: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law.[31]

If this was not confusing enough, state courts are not bound to follow judicial interpretations of federal law from the federal courts that sit in a state, including federal courts of appeals and district courts (that is, the intermediate appellate courts and trial courts).[32] There is only one federal court that binds all state courts as to the interpretation of federal law and the federal Constitution: the U.S. Supreme Court itself.[33]
[edit] Federal statutory enactment procedure
Main articles: United States Statutes at Large and United States Code

After the President signs a bill into law (or Congress enacts it over his veto), it is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) where it is assigned a law number, and prepared for publication as a slip law.[34] Public laws, but not private laws, are also given legal statutory citation by the OFR. At the end of each session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled into bound volumes called the Statutes at Large, and they are known as session laws. The Statutes at Large present a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted.

Every six years, public laws are incorporated into the United States Code, which is a codification of all general and permanent laws of the United States. A supplement to the United States Code is published during each interim year until the next comprehensive volume is published. The U.S. Code is arranged by subject matter, and it shows the present status of laws with amendments already incorporated in the text that have been amended on one or more occasions.
[edit] Federal regulatory promulgation procedure
Main articles: Administrative Procedure Act and Code of Federal Regulations

Congress often enacts statutes that grant broad rulemaking authority to federal agencies. Often, Congress is simply too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation, or Congress believes the agency's technical specialists are best equipped to deal with particular fact situations as they arise.

Therefore, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations by publishing them in the Federal Register. Eventually, after a period for public comment and revisions based on comments received, a final version is published in the Federal Register and the regulations are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. Under the principle of Chevron deference, regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes.

Besides regulations formally promulgated under the APA, federal agencies also frequently promulgate an enormous amount of forms, manuals, policy statements, letters, and rulings. These documents may be considered by a court as persuasive authority as to how a particular statute or regulation may be interpreted, but are not entitled to Chevron deference.
[edit] Formulation of federal precedent

Unlike the states, there is no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law and thereby granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent like their English predecessors. Federal courts are solely creatures of the federal Constitution and the federal Judiciary Acts.[35] However, it is universally accepted that the Founding Fathers of the United States, by vesting "judicial power" into the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts in Article Three of the United States Constitution, thereby vested in them the implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent; this power was widely accepted, understood, and recognized by the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was ratified.[36] Several legal scholars have argued that the federal judicial power to decide "cases or controversies" necessarily includes the power to decide the precedential effect of those cases and controversies.[37]

The difficult question is whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent through strict adherence to the rule of stare decisis. This is where the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself, in that an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases (and therefore also impliedly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction). Prior to a major change to federal court rules in 2007, about one-fifth of federal appellate cases were published and thereby became binding precedents, while the rest were unpublished and bound only the parties to each case.[36]

As Judge Alex Kozinski has explained, binding precedent as we know it today simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed.[36] Judicial decisions were not consistently, accurately, and faithfully reported on both sides of the Atlantic (reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked), and the United Kingdom lacked a coherent court hierarchy prior to the end of the 19th century.[36] Furthermore, English judges in the eighteenth century subscribed to now-obsolete natural law theories of law, by which law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said. They saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, not making it.[36] Therefore, a judge could reject another judge's opinion as simply an incorrect statement of the law, like how scientists regularly reject each other's conclusions as incorrect statements of the laws of science.[36]

The contemporary rule of binding precedent became possible in the U.S. in the nineteenth century only after the creation of a clear court hierarchy (under the Judiciary Acts), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing.[36] It gradually developed case-by-case as an extension of the judiciary's public policy of effective judicial administration (that is, in order to efficiently exercise the judicial power).[36] It is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as a matter of fundamental fairness, and second, that in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and underlying public policies), which in turn would create hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability, and thereby undermine the rule of law.[38][39]

Here is a typical exposition of that public policy in a 2008 majority opinion signed by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer:
“ Justice Brandeis once observed that 'in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.' Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406 (1932) (dissenting opinion). To overturn a decision settling one such matter simply because we might believe that decision is no longer 'right' would inevitably reflect a willingness to reconsider others. And that willingness could itself threaten to substitute disruption, confusion, and uncertainty for necessary legal stability. We have not found here any factors that might overcome these considerations.[40] ”

However, since precedents became binding, it is now sometimes possible, over time, for a line of them to drift away from the express language of any underlying statutory or constitutional texts, until such texts are severely overloaded with implied meanings not even hinted at on their face. This tendency towards so-called judicial lawmaking has been particularly obvious in federal substantive due process decisions. Due to obvious tension with the reservation of legislative power to Congress in Article One of the United States Constitution, it is often subject to harsh criticism as "antidemocratic" from originalists such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, as in this 2000 dissenting opinion:
“ In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today’s decision does not pretend that it is–and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people’s representatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe we cannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision–especially a celebrated decision–that has come to stand for the proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraints upon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, or that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.[41] ”
[edit] State law
Volumes of the Thomson West annotated version of the California Penal Code, the codification of criminal law in the state of California
The Restatement (Second) of Torts, a highly influential restatement of United States tort law

The fifty American states are separate sovereigns with their own state constitutions, state governments, and state courts (including state supreme courts).[42] They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate. Normally, state supreme courts are the final interpreters of state constitutions and state law, unless their interpretation itself presents a federal issue, in which case a decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a petition for writ of certiorari.[43]

Most cases are litigated in state courts and involve claims and defenses under state laws. Each year, only about 280,000 civil and criminal cases are heard in federal courts, as opposed to 27.5 million civil and criminal cases in state courts (these numbers exclude 858,000 federal bankruptcy cases, and in state courts, 4.5 million domestic, 1.7 million juvenile, and 55 million traffic cases).[44]

The law of most of the states is based on the common law of England; the notable exception is Louisiana, whose civil law is largely based upon French and Spanish law. The passage of time has led to state courts and legislatures expanding, overruling, or modifying the common law; as a result, the laws of any given state invariably differ from the laws of its sister states.

All states have a legislative branch which enacts state statutes, an executive branch that promulgates state regulations pursuant to statutory authorization, and a judicial branch that applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations, as well as local ordinances.

All states have codified some or all of their statutory law into legal codes. Codification was an idea borrowed from the civil law through the efforts of American lawyer David Dudley Field.[45] New York's codes are known as "Laws." California and Texas simply call them "Codes." Other states use terms such as "Revised Statutes" or "Compiled Statutes" for their compilations. California, New York, and Texas have separate subject-specific codes, while all other states and the federal government use a single code divided into numbered titles.

In some states, codification is often treated as a mere restatement of the common law, to the extent that the subject matter of the particular statute at issue was covered by some judge-made principle at common law. Judges are free to liberally interpret the codes unless and until their interpretations are specifically overridden by the legislature.[46] In other states, there is a tradition of strict adherence to the plain text of the codes.

The advantage of codification is that once the state legislature becomes accustomed to writing new laws as amendments to an existing code, the code will usually reflect democratic sentiment as to what the current law is (though the entire state of the law must always be ascertained by reviewing case law to determine how judges have interpreted a particular codified statute).

In contrast, in jurisdictions with uncodified statutes, like the United Kingdom, determining what the law is can be a more difficult process. One has to trace back to the earliest relevant Act of Parliament, and then identify all later Acts which amended the earlier Act, or which directly overrode it. For example, when the UK decided to create a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, lawmakers had to identify every single Act referring to the House of Lords that was still good law, and then amend all of those laws to refer to the Supreme Court.[47]
[edit] Attempts at "uniform" laws

Efforts by various organizations to create "uniform" state laws have been only partially successful. The two leading organizations are the American Law Institute (ALI) and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). The most successful and influential uniform laws are the Uniform Commercial Code (a joint ALI-NCCUSL project) and the Model Penal Code (from ALI).

Apart from model codes, the American Law Institute has also created Restatements of the Law which are widely used by lawyers and judges to simplify the task of summarizing the current status of the common law. Instead of listing long, tedious citations of old cases that may not fit very well together (in order to invoke the long-established principles supposedly contained in those cases), or citing a treatise which may reflect the view of only one or two authors, they can simply cite a Restatement section (which is supposed to reflect the consensus of the American legal community) to refer to a particular common law principle.
[edit] Local law
Law affects every aspect of American life, including parking lots. Note the citations to statutes on the sign.

States have delegated lawmaking powers to thousands of agencies, townships, counties, cities, and special districts. And all the state constitutions, statutes and regulations (as well as all the ordinances and regulations promulgated by local entities) are subject to judicial interpretation like their federal counterparts.[48]

It is common for residents of major U.S. metropolitan areas to live under six or more layers of special districts as well as a town or city, and a county or township (in addition to the federal and state governments).[49] Thus, at any given time, the average American citizen is subject to the rules and regulations of several dozen different agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, depending upon one's current location and behavior.
[edit] Types of law
[edit] Procedural law

Traditionally, lawyers distinguish between procedural law (which controls the procedure followed by courts and parties to legal cases) and substantive law (which is what most people think of as law). In turn, procedural law is divided into criminal procedure and civil procedure.
[edit] Criminal procedure

The law of criminal procedure in the United States consists of a massive overlay of federal constitutional case law interwoven with the federal and state statutes that actually provide the foundation for the creation and operation of law enforcement agencies and prison systems as well as the proceedings in criminal trials. Due to the perennial inability of legislatures in the U.S. to enact statutes that would actually force law enforcement officers to respect the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and convicts, the federal judiciary gradually developed the exclusionary rule as a method to enforce such rights. In turn, the exclusionary rule spawned a family of judge-made remedies for the abuse of law enforcement powers, of which the most famous is the Miranda warning. The writ of habeas corpus is often used by suspects and convicts to challenge their detention, while the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bivens actions are used by suspects to recover tort damages for police brutality.
[edit] Civil procedure
Main article: Civil procedure in the United States

The law of civil procedure governs process in all judicial proceedings involving lawsuits between private parties. Traditional common law pleading was replaced by code pleading in 24 states after New York enacted the Field Code in 1850, and code pleading in turn was subsequently replaced again in most states by modern notice pleading during the 20th century. The old English division between common law and equity courts was abolished in the federal courts by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938; it has also been independently abolished by legislative acts in nearly all states. The Delaware Court of Chancery is the most prominent of the small number of remaining equity courts.

35 states have adopted rules of civil procedure closely modeled after the FRCP (including rule numbers). However, in doing so, they had to make some modifications to account for the fact that state courts have broad general jurisdiction while federal courts have relatively limited jurisdiction.

New York, Illinois, and California are the most significant states that have not adopted the FRCP. Furthermore, both states continue to maintain their civil procedure laws in the form of codified statutes enacted by the state legislature, as opposed to court rules promulgated by the state supreme court, on the ground that the latter are undemocratic. But certain key portions of their civil procedure laws have been modified by their legislatures to bring them closer to federal civil procedure.[50]

Generally, American civil procedure has several notable features, including extensive pretrial discovery, heavy reliance on live testimony obtained at deposition or elicited in front of a jury, and aggressive pretrial "law and motion" practice designed to result in a pretrial disposition (that is, summary judgment) or a settlement. U.S. courts pioneered the concept of the opt-out class action, by which the burden falls on class members to notify the court that they do not wish to be bound by the judgment, as opposed to opt-in class actions, where class members must join into the class. Another unique feature is the so-called American Rule under which parties generally bear their own attorneys' fees (as opposed to the English Rule of "loser pays"), though American legislators and courts have carved out numerous exceptions.
[edit] Substantive law

Substantive law comprises the actual "substance" of the law; that is, the law that defines legally enforceable rights and duties, and what wrongful acts amount to violations of those rights and duties. Because substantive law by definition is enormous, the following summary briefly covers only a few highlights of each of the major components of American substantive law.
[edit] Criminal law
Main article: Criminal law of the United States

Criminal law involves the prosecution by the state of wrongful acts which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace (and cannot be deterred or remedied by mere lawsuits between private parties). Generally, crimes can result in incarceration, but torts (see below) cannot. The vast majority of the crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted and punished at the state level. Federal criminal law focuses on areas specifically relevant to the federal government like evading payment of federal income tax, mail theft, or physical attacks on federal officials, as well as interstate crimes like drug trafficking and wire fraud.

All states have somewhat similar laws in regard to "higher crimes" (or felonies), such as murder and rape, although penalties for these crimes may vary from state to state. Capital punishment is permitted in some states but not others. Three strikes laws in certain states impose harsh penalties on repeat offenders.

Some states distinguish between two levels: felonies and misdemeanors (minor crimes). Generally, most felony convictions result in lengthy prison sentences as well as subsequent probation, large fines, and orders to pay restitution directly to victims; while misdemeanors may lead to a year or less in jail and a substantial fine. To simplify the prosecution of traffic violations and other relatively minor crimes, some states have added a third level, infractions. These may result in fines and sometimes the loss of one's driver's license, but no jail time.

For public welfare offenses where the state is punishing merely risky (as opposed to injurious) behavior, there is significant diversity across the various states. For example, punishments for drunk driving varied greatly prior to 1990. State laws dealing with drug crimes still vary widely, with some states treating possession of small amounts of drugs as a misdemeanor offense or as a medical issue and others categorizing the same offense as a serious felony.
[edit] Contract law
The Uniform Commercial Code
Main article: United States contract law

Contract law covers obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties. Generally, contract law in transactions involving the sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide as a result of the widespread adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, there is still significant diversity in the interpretation of other kinds of contracts, depending upon the extent to which a given state has codified its common law of contracts or adopted portions of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.

Parties are permitted to agree to arbitrate disputes arising from their contracts. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (which has been interpreted to cover all contracts arising under federal or state law), arbitration clauses are generally enforceable unless the party resisting arbitration can show unconscionability or fraud or something else which undermines the entire contract.
[edit] Tort law
Main article: United States tort law

Tort law generally covers any civil action between private parties arising from wrongful acts which amount to a breach of general obligations imposed by law and not by contract.

Tort law covers the entire imaginable spectrum of wrongs which humans can inflict upon each other, and of course, partially overlaps with wrongs also punishable by criminal law. Although the American Law Institute has attempted to standardize tort law through the development of several versions of the Restatement of Torts, many states have chosen to adopt only certain sections of the Restatements and to reject others. Thus, because of its immense size and diversity, American tort law cannot be easily summarized.

For example, a few jurisdictions allow actions for negligent infliction of emotional distress even in the absence of physical injury to the plaintiff, but most do not. For any particular tort, states differ on the causes of action, types and scope of remedies, statutes of limitations, and the amount of specificity with which one must plead the cause. With practically any aspect of tort law, there is a "majority rule" adhered to by most states, and one or more "minority rules."

Notably, the most broadly influential innovation of 20th century American tort law was the rule of strict liability for defective products, which originated with judicial glosses on the law of warranty. In 1963, Roger J. Traynor of the Supreme Court of California threw away legal fictions based on warranties and imposed strict liability for defective products as a matter of public policy in the landmark case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products.[51] The American Law Institute subsequently adopted a slightly different version of the Greenman rule in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which was published in 1965 and was very influential throughout the United States.[52] Outside the U.S., the rule was adopted by the European Economic Community in the Product Liability Directive of July 1985,[53] by Australia in July 1992,[54] and by Japan in June 1994.[55]

By the 1990s, the avalanche of American cases resulting from Greenman and Section 402A had become so complicated that another restatement was needed, which occurred with the 1997 publication of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability.[56]
[edit] Odd exceptions
This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations, which can be found through legal research.

Much of Louisiana law is derived from French and Spanish civil law, which stems from its history as a colony of both France and Spain. Puerto Rico, a former Spanish colony, is also a civil law jurisdiction of the United States. However, the criminal law of both jurisdictions has been necessarily modified by common law influences and the supremacy of the federal Constitution.

Furthermore, Puerto Rico is also unique in that it is the only U.S. jurisdiction in which the everyday working language of court proceedings, statutes, regulations, and case law is Spanish. All states, the federal government, and most territories use American English as their working language. Some states, such as California, do provide certain court forms in several languages for the convenience of immigrants and naturalized citizens. But American law as developed through statutes, regulations, and case law is always in English, attorneys are expected to take and pass the bar examination in English, judges hear oral argument and give orders from the bench in English, and testimony and documents originating in other languages is translated into English before being incorporated into the official record of a case.

Many states in the southwest that were originally Mexican territory have inherited several unique features from the civil law that governed when they were part of Mexico. These states include Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. For example, these states all have a community property system for the property of married persons (Idaho, Washington, and Wisconsin have also adopted community property systems, but they did not inherit them from a previous civil law system that governed the state). Another example of civil law influence in these states can be seen in the California Civil Code, where the law of contracts is treated as part of the law of obligations (though the rules actually codified are clearly derived from the common law).

Many of the western states, including California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming use a system of allocating water rights known as the prior appropriation doctrine, which is derived from Spanish civil law. It should be noted that each state has modified the doctrine to suit its own internal conditions and needs.
[edit] See also

* Admission to the bar in the United States
* Attorneys in the United States
* Black's Law Dictionary
* Courts of the United States
* Legal education in the United States
o Law school in the United States
* Legal systems of the world
* Privacy laws of the United States

[edit] Lists

* Legal research in the United States
* List of sources of law in the United States
* List of Uniform Acts (United States) - intended for state-level legislation
* List of United States federal legislation
* List of United States Supreme Court cases

[edit] References

1. ^ See Stephen Elias and Susan Levinkind, Legal Research: How to Find & Understand The Law, 14th ed. (Berkeley: Nolo, 2005), 22.
2. ^ William Burnham, Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States, 4th ed. (St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2006), 41.
3. ^ Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
4. ^ Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3rd ed. (New York: Touchstone, 2005), 307 and 504-505.
5. ^ Graham Hughes, "Common Law Systems," in Fundamentals of American Law, ed. Alan B. Morisson, 9-26 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 33.
6. ^ Hughes, 12.
7. ^ Friedman, 4-5. Professor Friedman points out that English law itself was never completely uniform across England prior to the 20th century. The result was that the colonists recreated the legal diversity of English law in the American colonies.
8. ^ Paul Bergman and Sara J. Berman-Barrett, Represent Yourself In Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, 6th ed. (Berkeley: Nolo, 2008), 481.
9. ^ See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803).
10. ^ See Casarotto v. Lombardi, 886 P.2d 931, 940 (Mont. 1994) (Trieweiler, J., specially concurring), vacated and remanded by 515 U.S. 1129 (1995), reaff'd and reinstated by 901 P.2d 596 (Mont. 1995), rev'd sub nom. Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996).
11. ^ Friedman, 67-69.
12. ^ U.S. Const., Art. 1, §§ 9 and 10.
13. ^ U.S. Const., Amend. IV.
14. ^ John C. Dernbach and Cathleen S. Wharton, A Practical Guide to Legal Writing & Legal Method, 2nd ed. (Buffalo: William S. Hein Publishing, 1994), 34-36.
15. ^ Antonin Scalia and Amy Gutmann, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 3-13.
16. ^ Miles O. Price & Harry Bitner, Effective Legal Research: A Practical Manual of Law Books and Their Use, 3rd ed. (Buffalo: William Hein & Co., 1969), 272.
17. ^ Ibid.
18. ^ Ibid.
19. ^ See, e.g., Gomez v. Superior Court (Walt Disney Co.), 35 Cal. 4th 1125 (2005) (citing Lovett v. Hobbs, 89 Eng. Rep. 836 (1680)). The Gomez court relied on a line of cases originating with Lovett in order to hold that Disneyland was a common carrier.
20. ^ See, e.g., Phillippe v. Shapell Industries, 43 Cal. 3d 1247 (1987) (citing original Statute of Frauds from England) and Meija v. Reed, 31 Cal. 4th 657 (2003) (citing Statute of 13 Elizabeth).
21. ^ Burnham, 43-44.
22. ^ Friedman, 69.
23. ^ Elizabeth Gaspar Brown, "Frontier Justice: Wayne County 1796-1836," in Essays in Nineteenth-Century American Legal History, ed. Wythe Holt, 676-703 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976): 686. Between 1808 and 1828, the briefs filed in court cases in the Territory of Michigan changed from a complete reliance on English sources of law to an increasing reliance on citations to American sources.
24. ^ Friedman, 475.
25. ^ People v. Kelly, 40 Cal. 4th 106 (2006).
26. ^ Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law in the Twentieth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 575.
27. ^ See Lawrence v. Texas, 538 U.S. 558 (2003), in which the majority cited a European court decision, Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981), as indicative of the shared values of Western civilization.
28. ^ Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 360–361 (1959).
29. ^ Hughes, 13-14.
30. ^ Trident Center v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 847 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1988). In this opinion, federal judge Alex Kozinski attacked a 1968 Supreme Court of California opinion in exhausting detail before conceding that under Erie, he had no choice but to apply the state court's reasoning despite his strong dislike of it.
31. ^ Choate v. County of Orange, 86 Cal. App. 4th 312, 327-28 (2000).
32. ^ Yee v. City of Escondido, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1349, 1351 (1990).
33. ^ Elliot v. Albright, 209 Cal. App. 3d 1028, 1034 (1989).
34. ^ Public and Private Laws: About. United States Government Printing Office. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/about.html.
35. ^ Hughes, 13.
36. ^ a b c d e f g h Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001), citing Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, vacated as moot on reh'g en banc, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2000).
37. ^ Michael J. Gerhardt, The Power of Precedent (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 59.
38. ^ Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Judgment Calls: Principle and Politics in Constitutional Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 70-71.
39. ^ Frederick Schauer, Precedent, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 571, 595-602 (1987).
40. ^ John R. Sand Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 139 (2008).
41. ^ Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
42. ^ U.S. Const., Amend. X.
43. ^ See 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
44. ^ Alan B. Morisson, "Courts," in Fundamentals of American Law, ed. Alan B. Morisson, 57-60 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 60.
45. ^ Burnham, 53.
46. ^ California is the supreme example of this position. Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975).
47. ^ See Schedule 9, Constitutional Reform Act 2005, from the UK Office of Public Sector Information.
48. ^ See, e.g., Burton v. Municipal Court, 68 Cal. 2d 684 (1968) (invalidating Los Angeles city ordinance regulating motion picture theatres as an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution).
49. ^ Osborne M. Reynolds, Jr., Local Government Law, 3rd ed. (St. Paul: West, 2009), 33.
50. ^ For example, Section 437c of the California Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the state legislature several times in the 1990s to bring California's summary judgment standard in line with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826, 849 (2001).
51. ^ Mark A. Kinzie & Christine F. Hart, Product Liability Litigation (Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning, 2002), 100-101. See also Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963).
52. ^ Kinzie & Hart, 101.
53. ^ Norbert Reich, Understanding EU Law: Objectives, Principles and Methods of Community Law (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), 337.
54. ^ Ellen E. Beerworth, "Australia," 51-74, in International Product Liability, vol. 1, ed. Christian Campbell (Salzburg: Yorkhill Law Publishing, 2006), 52.
55. ^ Patricia L. Maclachlan, Consumer Politics in Postwar Japan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 226.
56. ^ "ALI Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Products Liability". Ali.org. http://www.ali.org/ali_old/promo6081.htm. Retrieved 2009-12-26.

[edit] Further reading

* Cardozo, Benjamin N. (1957). An Introduction to Law. Cambridge: Harvard Law Review Association. (Chapters by eight distinguished American judges).
* Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press. (Classic text on "what is law?")
* Llewellyn, Karl N. (1986). "The Bramble Bush," in Karl N. Llewellyn on Legal Realism. Birmingham, AL: Legal Classics Library. (Classic introductory text on the nature of law).
* Nizer, Louis (1978). My Life in Court. New York: Jove. (Popular description of a lawyer's practice).
* Pound, Roscoe (1997). Social Control Through Law. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Nature of law and its role in society).
* Schwartz, Bernard (1974). The Law in America. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co. (Evolution of American legal institutions since 1790).

kawl cozah ruah ning (policy) le laimi

Kawl Cozah Dirhmun le A Ruahning (Policy) le Laimi
By Sang Awr

Biahmaithi: Biaknak lei riantuanmi ka si nain kan cozah nih ram an kan hruaining ka zoh tikah ka purh khawh tawk ka hmuhning tial ka duh. Laimi dirhmun in cuanh ka duh fawn. Biaknak lei Vuanci nih kum khat ah voihnih tluk Kawlram chung biaknak lei riantuantu upa he tonnak an tuah tawn i MBC President dirhmun in kaa tel ve theo. Khrihfa lawng si loin Muslim le Hindu zong an i tel. Kanmah duhmi chimnak nakin anmah nih zul hna seh ti an kan duhmi kha an kan chimh tawn. A donghnak ah nan duhmi kan chim ve uh an ti i biaknak ah luatnak a um lonak, biaknak lei inn sak a harnak, zalong tein i pumh khawh lonak, thawngtha chimtu harnak an tonning hna kan chim tik hna ah “tha tein kan in zohpiak hna lai” an ti nain a taktak ah cun kan duhnak an tuah bal lo. Biaknak lei vuanci cu ralbawi General a si ve caah ralkap kalning in a kan hruai ko. Hi bantuk ka hmuhtonmi tete le nihin cozah an dirhmun le cozah nih thil an ruahning le Laimi dirhmun kha ka hmuhning ka hun tial lai.

1. Kawl Cozah Dirhmun: Kawl cozah dirhmun kan zoh hmasa lai. Nihin Kawl cozah dirhmun kan zoh tikah hngal ngai in a um. Laiholh in “Hngal” kan timi hi “midang zeirel lo, kaa zaa ve” timi ruahnak ngeih khi a si. Ralkap nih kum 50 deng an kan uk cang i nai hrawng hi hlah maw an hngal khun ka ti. Tlangcungmi ral a thomi hna zong kan daihter khawh hna. Cun ramleng in cozah dohnak aphunphun a tuahmi hna zong zeipipa tuah kho ding an si lo, aho cozah zong nih langhngan in an bawm hna lo tiah an zei hriktida a thak lo. Cun vawleipi kalning zoh tikah kan dirhmun a fek tiah an i ruah. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon nih phone a chawnh hmanh ah Pu Than Sui nih a tlai duh lo. UN Secretary General a si an ti tikah voihnih tiang a chiahter men hna. UN zong zeiah an rel lem lo tinak a si. Nargis lio zongah US le French tinbaw an luhter hna lo. Kawlholh in chim ahcun an i seihchiah taktak. Hiti hin an hngal ngamnak cu a ruang tete an um.

1) Ram Hruainak Upadi Fehternak (Constitution Referendum): Nan theih cio bantukin ramhruainak upadi cu an suai I referendum an tuah. Rammi zapi zakhat ah 90 reng lo nih an kan thohkhanmi cozah kan si tiah an i lunghmuih ngai. Kan duhmi kan tuah khawh i kan dirhmun a fek cang, tiah an i ruah. Rammi thinlung taktak a si lo, ti cu ralbawi a fim deuh nih cun an hngalh ko lai nain hruaitu zapi ruahnak ah cun kan ti kho taktak, rammi nih an duh taktak ko, ti lungput khi an ngei dih. Democracy min a pu nain ralkap kut thiamthiam ah kan um lai. Mizapi hi zeidah an tuah khawhmi a um lem tiin lalhnawh zong khi a si men lai. Rammi kan si a fah tuk zongah annih cu an rum i an zei a poi lo. Mipi kan si a fah chin cuahmah zongah an zei a poi lo. Cucu lung a fim ko mi caah celh awkah a har hringhran.

2) Ramdang Thohkhannak: Vawleicung politics luanning ah vawlei tuanbia hi kanmah lei a hoih cang tiah an ruah. Amerikan le EU hi an chan a dih pah ziahmah lai i Tuluk, Russia, India chan a tho lai tiah an zumh. Cu ti an ruahnak cu a ruang a um.

a) Tuluk Ram: Kawlram le Tuluk hi hlan deuhpi in aa dawmi ram innpa an rak si. Nai hrawng in pehtlaihnak a thuk chinchin. Tuluk nih UN ah Kawlram kong a chuah paoh ah Veto in a khamh. Russia zong nih cu thiamthiam. Beijing Olypic lioah Tabboo halchia an timi pakhat cu zeibantuk Journalist hmanh nih Kawlram kong hal khawh lo dingah an telh. Hi tlukin Kawlram an dirpi hi a chan a um.

1) Kawlram hi an thil zuarnak market tha tuk kan si. Nichiar Tuluk ram in Muse khua le a dangdang in a lutmi thil hi chim cawk a si lo. Tuluk thil a hmang lomi kan um ti lo. Tuluk an i miak tuk.

2) Kawlram in Zinan Pipeline tuah an duh. Tuluk nih zakhat ah 90 cu Middle East in zinan a cawk. Singapore pawng Macalla Straits in tinbaw in phurh a si. Nikhatkhat ah Amerika maw, ram pakhatkhat he buainak a um ahcun zinan phurhnak lam a pit sual lai tiah an hna a ngam lo. Cucaah Bengal rili in Kawlram tan in Tuluk ram ah pipeline in a luh ahcun an caah a miak tuk, security caah hnangam tuk a si. Tuluk nih UN ah a dirkamh bantukin Kawl cozah nih Zinan Pipeline tuahnak nawl a pek ve.

3) Tuluk cu a rauh hlan ah Super power a si lai tihi an theih tuk fawn. Sipuazi lei zongin Amerika changtu dirhmun a phan pah cang. Holh set tung loin thil tam tuk a tuah. Nitlaklei hruainak model hmang loin an cozah reform a tuah. Deng Tsio Ping nih “chizawh hi a ran le a nah bia a pi lo, zu a seh khawhtu kha bia a pi deuh” a ti. Chim duhmi cu nitlaklei hruainak model theng hi a tha bik a si hlei lo, ram a thancho kha bia pi a tinak a si, Tuluk model hi kan hlawhtling tiah an i ruah cang. Tuluk he ram innpa kan si pinah a thangcho chin lengmangmi bochan awktlak ram a si fawn. Tuluk kan i bochan ahcun aho nih dah zei an kan ti khawh lai tiah an ruah. Hi ruangah hin kan dirhmun a fek ko tiah an hngal chinnak a si. Tuluk nih Koko tikulh a halmi zong hi a pek khawh men. A chung thil kan fiang lo.

b) Russia Ram: Hi karlak ah Russia a lut ve. UN zongah Tuluk a chim hlan hmanh ah Kawlram dirkamhnak a thawk. Tuluk he Veto Power in Kawlram an khamh. Vawlei politics luanning ngai hi Amerika he an i daw lem lo timi paoh kha tha an pek hna. Afrika le Latin Amerika zongah thuk ngai in an lut cang. Cold war a um ti loh ti a si nain a hramte a taang rih. Georgia kong ah a fiang khun. Thil biapi a chuah ahcun Shanghai Declaration ram hna zong an i kom kho fawn. Kawlram chungah bawmhnak an tuah. Russian Scientists Kawlram ah zeizatdah an um ti kan fiang kho lo. Acheu nih cun 1000 tluk an um lai tiah an ti. Mandalay -Maymyo lam pawngah inn nganpipi an sak i a tam bik cu cuka ah cun an um ti a si. Kawlram mi Nuclear science cawn dingin Russia nih full sholarship a pek hna. Tukum 2008 chungah a kalmi hna hmanh hi minung 900 an si cang. Kum 2000 in 2010 tiang project a si i tam ngai an kal cang. Tutan a kalmi ah Laimi zong 4 tluk an i tel ve. Ph.D tiang cawnter an timh hna. Hmailei ah fimthiamnak lei in Kawlram thanchoternak caah thil tampi an tuah. Hi ruangah Kawl cozah a lung a hmui i a hngalnak a si fawn.

c) India Ram: India ram zong a lut ve. Kawlram a dawt tuk caah cun si dawh cu a si lo. Tuluk an luh tuk tikah a thinphan dawh a si. Tuluk le India cu ramri kong ah a buai ciami an si. Atu le atu Indian ralbawi General pawl an phan lengmang. Tamu in Kalemyo in Mandalay tiang lam cawhpiak an timh. Tam ngai an cawh cang. Security ca bik ah si dawh a si. Cun India caah Tuluk bantukin sipuazi market tha ngai a si ve. India thil tam ngai Kawlram ah a lut. Superpower a si kho te dingmi India nih a ka dirpi tiah aa ruah. Kawl cozah cu zer tuk ve kaw ram thum komh in a komh zia a thiam ngai hna. Hi nih hin Kawl cozah a lung a thawnter i a zei a poi lo chin lengmang.

d) ASEAN Ram Hna: ASEAN ah a luh hnu in a hngal deuh fawn. Vawleicung komhnak bu ah kan i tel kho tiah an ruah. ASEAN nih an ruah ningin an hruai kho hna lo. Ram chungah buainak a um tik zongah zeipipa an i thlak kho lo. UN zong nih zeipipa an tuah kho lo. Kuzale a hei thlah tawn i Kawl General pawl nih lecture an pek hna i an kirter hna. Nihin tiang an tuah khawhmi a um lo. Khatlei in ASEAN meeting paoh ah an kai ve i vawleicung ramdang he tonnak caan tha an ngei lengmang. ASEAN member an sinak nih hin tha a pek ngai hna. An ral a thatter hna. A hupphengtu ah an i hman. Sipuazi lei cun zeipipa a bawm kho lo. Cucaah atu an i zuam bikmi cu nitlaklei nih sipuazi an phihmi hi phoih khawhnak a phunphun in lam an kawl.

2. Kawl Cozah Ruahning (Policy)

A bikin miphunte caah tih a nung ngaimi cu “miphun pakhat, ram pakhat, biaknak pakhat” ti a si. Hi ruahning cu khuazeika cauk hmanh ah an langhter lo. Asinain Kawlram chungmi hna hi cozah pakhat, miphun pakhat, nunphung pakhat, holh pakhat, biaknak pakhat tangah a um khawh nakhnga lam tampi in an i zuam. Ruah setmat lo ahcun ramchungmi zong nih theih khawh a si lo. Cun Kawlram in a chuak cangmi hna zong nih mit in hmuh lo pinah nunnak in tuarnak a um lo caah hngalh ngaingai khawh a si lo. A ing, a tuarmi le mit in a hmu taktak mi nih fiang deuh in an hmuh khawh. Roman Empire chan lio zongah hi bantuk hi ruahnak policy hi a rak um balmi a si.

1) Biaknak pakhat (One Religion): Biaknak kong hi a hmasa ah tial ka duh. Kawlram pumpi hi biaknak pakhat ah can dih an kan duh. Phungki pawl nih an ruah ahcun biaknak kal phung a si caah ruah thiam deuh a si. Asinain cozah nih kha rian kha aa hmaithlak tikah harnak le lungretheihnak tam tuk a chuak. Phungki lawng si loin minung cawnpiaktu (puansen aa aih lomi) kha an thlah hna i Khrihfa thawngtha chimtu hna report a tuah tawntu hi mah hna hi an si bik. Laimi dirhmun in kan chim ahcun:

a) Ngakchia cawmnak: Lairam Myone khuapi paoh ah inn an sak i sifak, ngaktah, nu le pa a harmi fa kha an khawmh hna i an chiah hna. Cozah tuahmi a si nain phungki nih an zoh hna. Chaklei Lairam ah cun langhngan tukin an tuah lo. An khawmhmi ngakchia kha duhsah tein an cawnpiak hna, hmuhtheihnak an pek hna, ei din hnipuan fenh-aih le sianginn caah a herhmi an pek dih hna i Buddhist ah an luhter hna. Tang hra a awng khomi hna cu College tiang an kaiter hna lai. Lairam ah a ummi Myone 9 a um i Myone uktu Township Officer paoh (Vuanthok) cu Laimi a simi Buddhist nih tlaih dih dingin tuak a si. “Khrihfa nan si hi nan rak palh tuk” tiah a kan titu dingah Laimi lila kha hman an timh hna. Karen Buddhist le Khrihfa karlak ah an tuah bantuk kha a si ve lai. Laimi ngakchia tampi an lut cang.

b)Thawngtha Chim Khawh Lonak: Khrihfa Thawngtha chimnak hi an hmurka in cun a luat tuk ko an ti nain a taktak ahcun luat tein chim khawh a har ngai cang. Tuk le velhnak hmun a tam cang. A um ciami Khrihfa chungah zeimawzat luatnak a um nain Khrihfabu thar dirhnak le zum lotu hna sinah thawngtha chimnak cu a har hringhran ko. Lairam zongah Buddhist pura an sak luaimai cang.

c) Rank Kaiter lo: Khrihfami cu captain cung kai khawh a si ti lo. Atu lebang ah cun ralbawi cawnnak OTS sianginn ah Khrihfa telh a si ti lo. Khrihfami hi “tapung thawh an hmang” tiah an ruah a si rua. Military Engineering College le Military Medical College ah kainak nawl a um ti lo. Laimi Buddhist a simi kha an cawisan hna. Ni khatkhat ah Buddhist si dih ding kha an i tinhmi a si. Nawlngeihnak he tangka he an luh tikah sifak bikmi Laimi caah dir khawhnak a har ko.

2) Miphun pakhat ( One people): Kawlram cu miphun tampi fonh in dirhmi ram a si. Mah miphun sinak cio kha thanchoter i an sunsakmi nunphung tehna zong kilvenpiak ding a si. Alan (flag) an tuah tikah State le Division vialte theihhngalhnak caah arfi 14 an rak cuanter. Upadi thar ah cun a lai ah Arfi nganpi pakhat lawng a um cang. Kawl nih dolhmi upadi a si. Hlan ah cun mahle holh in sianginn ah cawn khawhnak pek a rak si. Asinain nihin ah cun sianginn ah Laica cawn a um ti lo. Biaknak nih cun a ti khawh tawk aa zuam nain effective taktak in a tuah kho lo. Kawlholh le Kawlca tu cu tangcheu in Kawlram pumpi cawnter a si i mikip nih thiam dih dingin an tuah. Cuticun miphunpi pakhat chungah i fonh dih ding kha an ruahmi a si.

a) Thit laknak: Ralkap hi Kawlram hmun kildeng tiangin an phan cang. Lairam zongah a kildeng khuate tiangin an phan cang. An phaknak kipah nupi thit le laak an i zuam. An fale kha Kawl phun si ding kha a chung tinhmi a si.

3) Cozah Pakhat: Nawlngeihnak cu Central Government lawngah a um. State cozah nih tuah khawhnak a ngeihmi a tlawm tuk. Cun State cozah kipah ralbawi cheuli cheukhat tel dih a si fawn lai. Caang kho lo dingin an tuah i cozah pakhat tangah khumh dih ding kha an ruahnak a si.

3. Laimi Dirhmun

Laimi kan dirhmun hi a lam kip in an kan deet i chuahnak lam a har chin lengmang. Kan vanchiat zong a si rua ka ti. India lei kan unau hna hi an i ning deuh ngai. Hi tlukin cozah nih an kan deet tikah Laimi kan lungput hi lungtling lo ngai a si fawn. Kan miphun nih ral phun hnih kan ngei. Chunglei ral le Lenglai ral (Internal & Extranal enemy) kan ti lai.

1) Chunglei Ral: Laimi hi mi tlawmte kan si nain kan lung aa khat kho lo. Kan holh aa dan ruangah a si bik men lai. ZBC President ka rak si lioah ka hmuhmi cu a chung taktak in kan i dawt khawh lo hi a si. Tidim, Falam, Hakha, Thlanglei Lairam kan dihlak in lungkhat riantuan ti taktak a har ngai ko. CNF riantuannak zongah cu bantuk thiamthiam a si kan ti lai. Lairam cozah uknak hrimhrim ah i report a tam tuk. Detah Party Chairman Pu E.K Kim Ngin zong nih kan lungthin putning a zoh tikah a khuaruah a rak har ngai. Uknak township zongin kan i dang i kan mawh lo kan ti lai. Akhunhzi a hmete zong biatak tukin kan i cuh. Kan duhmi kan hmuh lo ahcun Lairam then lai kan tih lo. Biaknak lei hmanh ah holh aa khat bakmi Zotung mi tlawmte an si nain Association 2 ah an i then. Atu hi 3 ah then an i zal. Matu zong then 3 ah an i then. Kanmah Laitlai deuh hmanh hi kan i then liangluang i kan holh hmetete kan dirpi chin lengmang. Tidim pa, Falam pa, Thlanglei Laimi pa he thinlung taktak in chiatnak thatnak i hrawm khawh a har ko. Kan pa Rev. Van Bik zong a lung a dong ngai ti a rak si. Mizoram hna cu holh pakhat an i hrawm kho dih. Kannih cu kan si kho lo. Thil hmete zongah kan i dang chin lengmang. Kan holh, kan ca kan thlau chin cuahmah, akhunhzi a umnak paoh kha kan fuh lengmang. Mi nih hloh an kan timh pinah kanmah le kanmah kan i khat kho lo. Kan i rem lo deuh paoh ah a kan uktu an tha a nuam. Hihi “Chunglei Ral” ka timi cu a si.

2) Lenglei Ral: Lenglei ral cu a cunglei ah kan chim cang bantukin miphunpi le nawlngeitu nih aphunphun in dolh an kan timh chin lengmangmi tehna, miphunpi biaknak ah luh dingin aphunphun in an kan deet ning tehna, uknak pakhat tangah caang kho loin an kan temtawn ning tehna hi a lenglei in a rami ral lawngte an si. Tlaihkhihnak le thongtlaknak tampi a um. Chunglei ral ruangah kan lung aa khat lo i deetkhawt kan fawi tuk. Nawlngeihnak hriamnam le tangka he a rat tikah cun a runven awk a har chinchin. Akhunhzi aphunphun he duhnung ngai in a ra fawn i mi cheukhat caah a miak deuhmi paoh kha thim a fawi tuk cang. Minung nih kan tlawm chinchin i harnak kan ton tikah kan i chanh kho fawn lo. Hihi kan dirhmun ka hmuhning a si. A si kun ahcun zeitindah kan um lai? Thlitu a hrannak lei paoh ah maw kan tluk lai. A fawilannak paoh in dah kan ruah lai. Ka miphun a va tlau te zongah “zei ti awk tha” kan ti lai maw? Hihi nihin Laimi caah a ngan bikmi challenge a si.

3) Danger Point ah Kan um: Nihin Laimi kan dirhmun hi tihnung dirhmun (danger point) ah kan um cang. Chunglei ral nih a cak chinchin. Kan unau cheukhat nih cozah ralkap he i bawmh in mah le mah i hloh timhnak a um. Lenglei ral nih a kan deet chinchin. Miphun tenau kan sinak hi a lang lengmang. Mah zawnruahnak a cak chinchin. Hmailei ah kal khawh a si ti lo. Kan naule cheukhat nih ram kip kal in aphunphun an i zuam nain zeihmanh thlennak caah a thahnem lo. Hnulei tolh ding le tlak lawng a taang. Kan si a fak chin lengmang. Kan ram a har chin lengmang. Lairam dawhte kan siang lo kan ti tawnmi zong zaamtaak cuahmah mi ram a si cang. Cucaah danger point ah kan um cang, ka tinak a si.

4) Pemvaihnak: Minung cu a rawl a taam ahcun a pawkhimnak a kawl a herh. Hihi cu minung phung a si. Kan har tuk cang ahcun pawkhim deuhnak hmun ah kal phung a si ko. Nihin ramleng ah chuah kan i zuam. Lam aphunphun in kan kawl. Kan chuah khawh tikah eidin awk a harmi chungkhar kha vun cawm a si. Mah nunnak he kaltaakmi chungkhar ca he lungrethei ngai in tuan a si. A fawi lo. Hi dirhmun hi kan duh in kan i thimmi cu a si lo. Khuacaan le thil sining nih a kan luhpi tu a si. A thawng deuhmi, a fim deuhmi, aa dawh deuhmi kan taang set ti lo. Kal khawhnak lam a awn ahcun kan dihlak in kal duhnak a um. Cun nihin ramdang a phanmi hna nih Lairam an dawt. An ti khawh tawkin bawmhnak phunphun an tuah. Mautam kong zongah siaherh ngai in an tuan i kan i lawm ngai. Asinain tihnung dirhmun in kan luat lo. Atu lungfimmi le ramdawtnak a ngeimi an thih dih hnuah zeidah kan can lai? Pemnak ram i a chuakmi tefa hrinhniang hna nih an thei kho ti lai maw? Ka hawipa ABC General Secretary Roy Medley nih chan thum a peh ahcun chuahkehnak miphun holh le nunphung a lo cang a ti. Hmaan dawh ngai a si.

Exodas kan timi hi sal cannak Izip ram chuahtaak in Kanaan ram kalnak kong a si. Kanaan ram an phakmi cu anmah ram ah a cang. Asinain kannih Exodas cu Israelmi Exodas bantuk a si lo. Kannih Exodas cu mah ram kaltaak in Laimi nakin a fim deuhmi le a rum deuhmi miphunpi chungah va luh a si. Ram le miphun sinak ngei ti loin miphunpi nih dolh dingin vung luh khi a si. Nihin caan karlak kan i lawmhnak hi ruah siarmar ah mitkuh a thaw thlu lo. Tihnung dirhmun ah a kan phakpitu pakhat a si thiamthiam. Kan i thim ding a tlawm ko. Zeitindah kan tuah lai. Hi ca ka tial tikah aho pumpak mawhchiatnak pakhat hmanh aa tel lo. Keimah lila hi Yangon ah a ummi ka si. Kei zong kaa tel ve. Midang pemvaih le kan pemvaih ning aa khat lo. Kan miphun cungah kan lungput a biapi ngai. Zeitindah tih a nungmi dirhmun in kan chuah khawh lai? Zeitindah kan luat khawh lai? Laimi Upa khuaruat kho deuh vialte ruahnak chuah cio dingin kan sawm hna.

Zuu

Zu le Mizoram: Laldenga hmuhning le Chin miphun
( Khapding a si lo: Doh ding a si)

By: Salai Van Lian Thang

Lai minih internet biaruahnak ah 'ZU' kong voi tamnawn ceih a si cang. Naite Feb 2010 ah Bangkok ah pumhkhomhnak a ngei kho ramkip Laimi mifimthiam hna nih 'Zu' cu kan miphun a kan hrawktu ralnganbik pakhat ah an pawm. Tha tein an purhdah hnuah chim dawh in a lang. Than Tlang ah an khap. CNF zongnih an khap theo. Lai Tlang hmun dang zongah khap duhnak a fak. Lairam Cozah thar nih buaipi ngaimi biahnok a si lai cu hi nih a kan fianh chung cang. Rampumpi zalonnak a um chinchin tikah buaipi ngaimi biatung a si ko lai i, 'Zu' kongkau ah Biaknak le Cozah, Biaknak le mirunnphu hna biahmuhthiam a har ngai te ding a lo.

Mizoram hi State puitling a hmuhnak kum (20) hlei a si cang i kan nunphung le kalphung aa khat dih ngot caah democracy zalonnak an hmuhhnu an ton cuahmah mi harsatnak pawl khi Chin miphun zongnih kan ton ve te ko hna lai. Zu kong kan buai lai, ramrian kong kan buai lai, zungrian kong kan buai lai, lothlawh kong kan buai lai, ramri kong kan buai hna lai, khuafonh kong kan buai lai, buailulh in kan hnok ngaingai caan a phan te lai. Cucu a ram minih kan ram kha kan mah duhning muisam keng tein remhthan/siamthan kan duh caah a si i hrialawk a tha theng lo mi an si ko hna.

Mizoram nih 'Zu' kong an buaipi ning hi kan miphun caah ruah awk tha tete an um len. Khap le khap lo kongah mi fimthiam can saupi an i sii, an i thua. Bia fakfak tiang zong an hmang. Tadinca in ca an i chuah hnawh. Miruunphu bukhat le bukhat an i do. Biaknak le Cozah bia an i al, khuaci an muihnik deng lengmang kha a rak si. Cu vialte biacuhnak phichuak cu 'Zu' khap burnak phung 'The Mizoram Liqour Total Prohibition Act 1995' Mizoram Lairelnak Sangbik a simi Mizoram Legislative Assembly pi nih a hun fehter i, a hun ser mi hi a si. 2010 kan Mizoram Cozah thar nih Law Commission an dirh, cu phung cu an zoh than, kan upadii hi 'a hrang tuk, midang state nih kan hmu hna seh law, 'draconian law' an kan ti piak phah lai, zaangfahnak le theihtheinak pel te hmanh pei a ngeih lo hi, misur hang hna a khap loh, misur hang nakin alcohol a tlawm deuh mi 'Beer' hna hi cu a khap ding a si lo' tiah biatung an dirh. Biaknak lei le mirunnphu pawl an ceihpi hna. Sihmanhsehlaw, cu upadii hrawhthan cu chim lo, remhthan zong naisai hohmanh nih an duh lo. 20th Feb 1997 in Mizoram ah MLTP Act cu a nung i tuchun tiang khi hman a si. Kum (13) a kal cang. MLTP Act nih Zu zuar, Zu phorh, Zu ser, Zu chiah/neih, Zudin, a khap dih. Mizoram pem Lai minih riansang deuh kan tuan khawh lo caah cu phung cu kan buar bik, kan pah bik, tiah an chim lengmang theo. Sihmanhsehlaw, cu upadii nih Lai, Mara, Chakma Autonomous Distict Council (3) a huap loh. Mizoram a ummi arm forces pawl rawleinak hmun hna an canteens le messes hna ah a khap loh. Cucu Than Tlang ah biaknak lei nih an khap, Ralkap/ Police nih an zuar than bantuk in, Mizoram ah MLTP Act a tlolh theo tonnak pakhat cu upadii nih a huap lo mi hmunhma in Zu cawkawk/ din awk a chuak than tung mi hi a si. Zu man tucu vantiang in an hauh ve, nain a ding duhcu an ding kho thiamthiam.


Zu khapnak phung tuanchuaktu le tlamtlintertu (Law enforchment) ah Cozah nih 'Excise and Narcotic Department' pakhat an dirh. Cabinet Vuanci pakhat nih a zohpi hna i, cu tangah Zipeng commissioner pakhat nih a hruai hna. Budget tawmnawn an tuk, officer tampi, staff tampi he zung an thu, hehtiah an cawl. Zu ding an tlaih hna, zu zuar an hrem hna, zu phor dan an tat hna, zu ser thong an thlak hna i, Mizoram luhchuahnak hauka le kutka kipah zuphor an bawh hna i check lengmang, tlaih lengmang a si.Mizoram ah huham a ngei ngaimi 'Central Young Mizoram Association' nih Cozah cu a bomh. Zu cu fak ngai in an khap ti, i tuk i hremnak a fah caah, i thah i nawn sualnak tiang a chuaksual pah lengmang theo. Bu huham ngei ngai an si caah tazacuai thiam lo in, cuticun bia a dai thai lengmang theo. Cheukhat nih 'Licence to kill' maw nan i pek tiah, i sawi le i doh a um peng. Kum (13) leng kal hnuah, cheukhat nih 'Zu khap cu a hlawhcham diam, kum (10) hman cang mi a hlawhtling lomi upadii cu zohthan a herh cang' tiah biatung thar an dirh, cheukhat nih 'a hlawh a tling tuk' an ti ve thiamthiam. Biaelnak a dong kho lo. Sihmanhsehlaw, Zu khap ruangah sualnak rate 'crime rate' cu tangpi ah fak ngaiin a tla thluahmah ve ko ti cu Cozah kum dih report ah a lang lengmang ve. Sihmanhsehlaw, Zu a har tikah Mino tampi nih ritnak sichunh, sidin in an tang than i, mino tampi an nunnak a liam ziahmah. Rank sangsang, Vuanci pipi, Officer lianlian fa le an tam khun. Hi lam hi kan Chin miphun zong nih hmailei kan zulh te lai lo ti khawh cu a si lo. Khuaruah har ngai a si mi cu, Zu khapnak phung nih, milian pipi, officer pipi, a khong a deng hna lo. Misi faktete, santlai lo tete, mi derthawm tete tu thonginn a phanhter, biaceih zung a phanhter theu hna. Cun khat lei ve ah, Eiruk khapnak (Anti-Corruption Law) upadii nih misifak tete, santlai lo tete, a khong a deng ve hawi hna lo i, Officer pipi, milian pipi tucu, biaceih zung a phanhter, thonginn a phanter, upadii ah an i awk lengmang theo hawi. Lingtalet in thil a um. Cucaah mirum pipi, officer lianpipi zong 'Zu' khapnak nih huap ve hna seh, tlai bak ve hna uh, upadii cungah hohmanh kan um kho lo, tiah misifak deuh hna nih, Cozah ah zual an kawh theu i, buailulh in an caan an hmang.

Kan nih zong Zu a that le that lo kong i el len cu sullam ngei lo a si i, zeitindah hlawhtling tein kan doh/hrial khawh deuh lai titu ruah a hau mi cu kan si. Zu nih mi pumrua thatha, mifim mithiam fawite in an lu a kan lak piak, innchungkhar phaisa a ei, inchungkhar a hrawh, mithah lainawn a tamter, mi rualban lo, ngaktah, lakfa, sifak a chuahter, nuhmei pahmei a chuahter, ngandamnak a hrawh pinah kan nunzia a niamter i, mi phundang mit ah 'uncilvilized people' tiah zohtlak lo in rang taktak in a kan kalpi pengtu pakhat cu 'Zu' hi a rak si ton. Din zia thiam ti i, hnuah luanlak in din, ngandamnak ca ti i, ngamdam cu chim lo, thi lak in dinnak ah a kan hruaipeng theo ko. Cucaah kan Biaknak lei mifimthiam hna nih kan miphun ralnganbik tiah an puh mi hi a si cang ko rua. Laimi nunphung le 'ZU' hun pehtlaihter ko dingcu kan duh hrimhrim lo. Zu dingmi miphun ti cu kan huat ngai ko nain Zu cu kan miphun chungah ai ciahnak a thuktuk cang ticu elkhawh a si lo. Zu an kan dohpinak cu Siangbawi te chan in a rak si cang. Purpit ah a phunphun in kan i cawnpiak, innchungkhar ah a phunphun in kan i chimhrin i, 'hrai chungah sen hirhiar in a um mi zu khi va zoh hlah' timi Bibal ca cangzong khuaza lamkam ah kan tar len ko hna. Sihmanhsehlaw a phichuak cu kum tampi kan kal hnu zongah tuchun nitiang kan Miphun ralnganbik a si thiamthiam rih ko mi hi kan i ruah cio ngaingai cu a hau cang. Cucaah Zu hi kan miphun nih zeiti muisam in dah kan hmuh lai i, kan kalpi hna lai? Mizoram pungsan in maw khap tholh in kan khap ve lai i, kan buaipi ve lai, ceihtha kan si ko hna i, kan fian cio lo cun kan buai peng ko lai.


Cucaah Mizoram miphun nih kan pa an timi Pu Laldenga, khalio Mizoram Vuancichok nih July 25, 1988 ah 'Zu' kong Mizoram mipi hmaiah a chimmi, leidai tangah phum si cang ko hmanh sehlaw, kum (20) a liam cang hnu zongah Mizoram mipi thinlung ah a nung peng rih mi a bia, Zu kong buai caan poahpoah ah tadinca hna zongnih a thar in an chuah duh rih pengmi a hmurka, ka hun langhter duh. Pu Laldengah nih:

'Zu hi kan miphun ral a si lo, kan hawikom zong a si pek lo. Zu hi thiltha zong a si lo.Thilchia zong a si pek lo, ka hmai i tikik hi la ning law, zu ah ruatning law, cu ruangah kan miphun ral cu a si lai lo ti ko uh? Kan hawi zong a si lo. Cucaah khua kan ruahning ahhi fimkhur ngaingai kan hau. Thil pakhat te khi a si ve ko, zeidang a si lo. Zu a thatnak le a chiatnakkong, kan ral a si le si lo kong, kan hawikom a si le si lo kong cu, kan i pehtlaih dan cio tu in a si. Zeitin ruahnak men ruangah a si lo ning pipi in kan chim kan chim lengmang mi hi tih a nung ngai in ka hmuh. Cucaah a biapibik mi cu kan i pehtlaihnak hi a si ton ko.Zu hi kan buaipi lo, kan ram ah zu a buaipi mi hna hi kan buaipi tu a si.Zu buaipimi mi tlawmte an um, cu hna cu hehtiah kan buaipi len in a lang.Zu cu a mah tein a chia lo, a mah tein a tha fawn lo. Tahchunhnak ah Pu Zoramthanga hi a tep zong a tep bak lo mi a si hnga i, hun rii thut taktak tuah seh law, zu kha a dik lo mi a si lo, Pu Zoramthanga kha a dik lo mi cu a si, zu a ri ve lo mi Pu Zamawia nih cun zeihmanh ah a rel theng lai lo. Cun 'Zu' muisam kan hmuhthiambik nak dingah, tahchunhnak ah nu pakhat nih nau hngakchia a um pi hnga i, cu hngakchia cu a lenkual nakah a tlu i, lungah ai khawng deng sual hnga, a nu nih hngakchia a lung a damnak ding caah lung kha, na sual tuk ai tiah a va bengh hnga i, hlonh diam uh sih, na sual tuk ai, tiah, a va hlonh diam hnga, cu bantuk cun Pu Zoramthanga ai vai i khon den ruang ahkhan, ai hlonh diam ko uh sih, kan ti lai i kan hlonh diam kun lai maw? Puitling lutput he khua kan tuak deuh ding tu a si lai lo maw? Lung kan velh ruang ahkhan hngakchia kha a tlu than hawi lai lo, tinak zong a si pek lo i, cun kan hlonh cawk fawn tung hna lai lo. Curuangah hngakchia a tluk lo ding tu kha khua kan ruah deuh ding cu a hau mi a si. Kan huat lo ding kha kan huat ton i, lungtum kha hua lo in hngakchia tukha a tluksual lo dingah kan cawnpiak deuh ding tu a biapi deuhmi cu a si. Huattlai mi cu a zu kha a si lo, a rit ruangah thil a tuahsual mi Pu Zoramthanga kha a si. Kan ram nih thil kan zohthiam hi a biapi ngaingai. Hihi zu a tha ti phun in ka chim uar mi a si lo, a si ning taktak kha ka chim mi a si. Kan ram nih, hngakchia bantuk si lo in, a sining taktakin kan i zohthiam a hau. Cun kan manifesto cathanh ah social reformation kan ti i, zuk le hmom tlawmter kan ti ko na in khua kan ruahning sersiam a hau i zatlung nun kan sersiam lo ahcun, vawlei civillization thanchonak nih a hun chuahpi mi ah hin, kan fimkhur thiam dingin a lang lo. Vawlei a hun thanchonak nih a tha le a chia hi a hun chuahpi hna i, kan cuanh veve ningah, Cozah mit in zohning aa dang, Biaknak mit in kan cuanh ning aa dang ve. Kan nunphung ah hin kan ruahnak diktak chimngam lo, Pathian kan zumhning zong kan zumhning tak chim ngam lo, a thianghlim deuh tiah langhduhnak men te hna, minih Pathian bia a ngaih ka ti hna seh, tibantuk ruang menmen te hna, Pathian bia ngaihtung lo i, biakinn panhmi kan tam ngai ko. Cun Zu kan duh lo kan tinak zongah hin mi dangnih a thianghlim kan ti hna seh, ti ruang te hna men ah, tam deuh cu kan si. Nain zu duh lo mi taktak cu kan ram ah hin biaknak ruangah tlawmpal cu an um. Nain za ah pakul long an si. Za ah sawmriat cu minih a thianghlim ka ti hna seh, ti ruang men te hna an si. Zu hi kan buaipi lo, zu a buaipi mi mitlawmte hi kan buaipi mi a si.Mi thianghlim siduh in kan i buaipi a tambik. Cu ruangah zu hi buaipi tlak in ka hmu lo, a buaipi mi kan buaipi sawhsawh a si ko' tiah Pu Laldenga nihcun a liamcia kum (20) ah Mizoram mipi a rak chimhhrin hna. ( http://zozamweeklynews.blogspot.com/2009/07/zu-chungchanga-laldenga-ngaihdan.html)

Hi a cunglei biachim nih 'Zu' an buaipi a fahning kha a kan chimh. Mipi nih an hmuhthiam nakhnga rak chim hmanhsehlaw tu ni tiang an buaipi mi biahnokbik pakhat ah a cang peng ko. Zeitikdah an daihpi te lai chim khawh a si ti lo. Cozah thar a kaipoah ah zu khapnak na hrawh lai maw hrawh lo, ticu media pawl biahalnak nganbik a si theo i, mipi nih an theihduhbik a phi pakhat zong a si ton. Kan theih bantuk in US ram zong 'dry movement' tiah 1840s hronghrang in Biaknak lei thiamthiam nih, hehtiah an rak thok i, December 1917 ah ram pumpi ah zukhapnak upadii (Volstead Act) cu, Hluttaw innpi pahnih ah, an rak fehter. Kum 1919 ahcun State (48) chungah (36) nih an rak pawm. 1840s in 1933s hronghrang tiang, kum (90) chung local le state politics ramkhelnak ah biahnokbik, biabuaibik a rak si ve. Sihmanhsehlaw, US rampawng Maxico le Canada hrong khap a si lo tikah, an chuahpi, an luhpi thiamthiam ko i, umzia a rak ngei tuk lo. Cu tikah 1921 hrongin Siilei thiamsang (physicians) pawl nih zukhap upadii hrawhding rampumpi ah biatung an dirh, an cawl cang. Zukhap duh lo an pung thluahmah. Cutin Zukhap upadii cu khuapi deuh poahah a hung lar lo chin lengmang. Cuticun zu khapnak upadii ( Volstead Act) cu 5 December 1933 ah an hrawh than. Cutin kum (90) chung an rak buaipi ko. Cheukhat State nihcun an khap thiam. Missispipi nih kum 1907 tiang a khap i, Kansaas nih kum 1987 tiang leng zudin a khap ve. India ram Gujarat State zongah tutiang an khap. Cuticun 'Zu' cu rak buaipi cio a si ko i, Chin miphun zongnih kan buaipi peng ve mi hi a si ko.

Cucaah 'Zu' hi kan miphun caah a biapi mi thil ah maw kan ruah taktak lai, a biapi tuk lo mi thil ahdah kan ruah lai? Pu Laldenga nih buaipi tham a si lo, a timi hi, kan Chin miphun caah aa tlak ve hnga maw? Zu taktak hi kan buaipi mi si lo in, a buaipimi mi tlawmte tu kan buaipi hna a rak si ve sual maw? Mi dang nih a thianghlim tiah ka ti hna seh, ti ruang hnaah a buaipi mi cu kan si ve sual maw? Kan miphun nih zeitindah 'Zu' muisam kan hmuh lai a biapi ngaingai ve ko cang. Pu Laldengah nih 'Zu' cu a mah sual in a sual lo, a mah tha in a tha fawn lo, kan ral zong a si lo, kan hawi zong a si lo, thiltha zong a si lo, thil chia zong a si lo, 'thil' pakhat ve menmen khi a si ko i, a tongthamtu cungah, pumpak pakhat cio nih kan pehtlaih ning tu in aa hngat, buaipi tham a si lo, tiah a ti.

Cucaah 'Zu' cu vawlei cungah a rak um ve mi, thil pakhat a si ko i, Society pakhat, miphun pakhat nih kan hrial khawh lo dingmi 'thil' pakhat cu a si ko. Um hlah ti zong ah ai ti thiam lo i, khoi ka cun a rak um ve lengmang thiamthiam ko lai. Cucaah Zu hi kan miphun caah kan ralnganbik, kan miphun a kan hrawktubik tiah kan puh asi ahcun, kan Chin miphun chungah Biaknak le Cozah, Cozah le mirunnphu hna kan bia kan i funti thiam hmasat (consensus) a biapi ngaingai te lai. Aruang cu, Mizoram zongah, Lai Tlang zongah, US zongah, Biaknak nih an thokpi pengmi a si. Kan mah lei mit veve in cuanh lo in, vawlei thanchonak nih a hun kalpi duhmi a sining taktak in kan cuanh longah kan buaipi mi a zia lai i, kan tha a dam bik te lai. Cun kan Miphun nih kan khap seh kan ti ahcun, a khap ning (system) ruah ngaingai a hau i, Than Tlang nih an khap, Police nih an zuar than, Mizoram ah an khap, Ralkap sin cawk than a si, US ah an khap, Canada le Maxico in an luhpi than i, an tlolh theo lengmang bantuk kan si lo a biapi ngai te lai. Mi sifak thongah a khumh cuahmah i, mirum milian officer, a onh than tungmi dirhmun kan si ve sual lo a biapi ngai lai. .

Biadonghnak: Kan Chin miphun nih 'ZU' hi kan miphun a hrawktu kan ralnganbik a si ko tiah, kan ruah kan puh ko a si ah cun '' Zu cu a khap in khap phun a si lo, a doh in doh phun a si lai' tiah ka ruah. Mizoram thil sining nih a kan cawnpiakmi pakhat cu Zukhap thlolh in an khap tung, cawnpiaknak (public awarness and education program) bantuk a um than lo tikah, mino tampi sichunh siidin lei an i mer i an nunnak a liamthan lengmang. Cucaah khap thlolh in khapnak in zeitindah kan doh hna lai, cawnpiaknak phunsan in maw kan kalpi lai, ti bnatuk leihoih in a lamkawl ding a si i, phunglam kawl ding a si. Cu ti cun 'ZU' kong kan ceih vevek seh kan ti ahcun ceih tha a si i, mifimthiam deuh kan pa le zong nih, kan ral a si tiah kan pawm ah cun, an kan thokpi caan a za ngai ngai cang.
Tawlreltu - on Sunday, July 18, 2010