To me, education is not just the matter of financial livelihood and social status, but why education is needed? Whether the allowed education is authentic, what the lacks or loopholes of education are and to the final stage: would education make the absorbers immortal? These are some of the questions and rhetoric that make me view education very differently from those of my peers and even my parents and lecturers.
Law and Politics are usually confused with one additional and cannot be meticulously separated from each other; as we usually hear the Faculty of Law and Politics, Center for Political and Legal Tuition, Professor of Law and Politics, etc. These are the facts that initiate me an theme to bring the core difference between Law and Politics and put it on a public display. The core difference would help the student to deeper understand the subject matters.
Do you have such the wonder? If no, embark on to make yourself curious about the core difference between Law and Politics to initiate your mental vocation and if yes, this is an article to unveil you a unique difference between Law and Politics to make you deeply understand.
As a student of Law, newspaper columnist, expert author, media liaison officer, legal and political assistant, I have found one complete differences between Law and Politics. This difference is "the interpretation."
Most students of Law and Politics don't know that the most significant idea of their education is "the interpretation." Why I dare to say this? Up to the present, we have billions of sources ranking from books and international media publication to the abstract sources, but these so-known as information won't make us a true political analyst or lawyer.
What we are seeing on these sources is just "plain information", so what are these information are. If information is just all about information, University is not needed, because most of these sources are accessible everywhere and even free. The things that we have not found on these sources are "the interpretation" or the path to interpretational secretes. Let's now jump up to the very core of our article.
Legal interpretation have to be "inside": in interpreting the law, the lawyer of any party or the conflicting parties themselves cannot interpret the law out of the law being enforced in the country where the trial is being heard. This may seem very vague and let us bring a good example to clarify. If you commit or are accused of committing a crime in the country in which you are residing in, you or your lawyer are not entitled to interpret the law out of the laws being enforced in your residing country. To a stricter extent, the laws being used for interpretation have to circumnavigate the crime that you did or are accused of committing. This case is different from "political interpretation."
Law and Politics may be equally broad, but interpretation in politics is a lot broader than in legal one. Have you ever noticed that a political analyst for a university in America would use approach in political interpretation by drawing examples from any country, any sources and any celebrities in the world. Political interpretation (analysis) is not as "inside" as in law.
Politics is a lot more flexible and then a lot softer than law. Other merits why politics allow a lot broader interpretation, because we even see a huge similarities between socialist and capitalist states (similar political application), but the laws in these two separate kinds of state are totally different. I know the last one sentence is too vague for you, but let's embark on the legal and political interpretation.