gem_id stringlengths 20 25 | id stringlengths 24 24 | title stringlengths 3 59 | context stringlengths 151 3.71k | question stringlengths 1 270 | target stringlengths 1 270 | references list | answers dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gem-squad_v2-train-19300 | 5a3afe343ff257001ab8438d | Rule_of_law | In the West, the ancient Greeks initially regarded the best form of government as rule by the best men. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, who was above the law. Plato nevertheless hoped that the best men would be good at respecting established laws, explaining that "Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state." More than Plato attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws. In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law: | Who did Plato hope would be subject to the established laws? | Who did Plato hope would be subject to the established laws? | [
"Who did Plato hope would be subject to the established laws?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19301 | 5a3afe343ff257001ab8438e | Rule_of_law | In the West, the ancient Greeks initially regarded the best form of government as rule by the best men. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, who was above the law. Plato nevertheless hoped that the best men would be good at respecting established laws, explaining that "Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state." More than Plato attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws. In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law: | Who did Aristotle envision ruling a benevolent monarchy? | Who did Aristotle envision ruling a benevolent monarchy? | [
"Who did Aristotle envision ruling a benevolent monarchy?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19302 | 5727bec13acd2414000deb41 | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | In which book of the Bible are limitations on Jewish monarchs outlined? | In which book of the Bible are limitations on Jewish monarchs outlined? | [
"In which book of the Bible are limitations on Jewish monarchs outlined?"
] | {
"text": [
"Deuteronomy"
],
"answer_start": [
155
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19303 | 5727bec13acd2414000deb42 | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | Who was against the divine rights of kings in England during the 1500s? | Who was against the divine rights of kings in England during the 1500s? | [
"Who was against the divine rights of kings in England during the 1500s?"
] | {
"text": [
"Bishop John Ponet"
],
"answer_start": [
563
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19304 | 5727bec13acd2414000deb43 | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | What principle did the restrictions on the right of kings, as detailed in Deuteronomy, influence later opposition? | What principle did the restrictions on the right of kings, as detailed in Deuteronomy, influence later opposition? | [
"What principle did the restrictions on the right of kings, as detailed in Deuteronomy, influence later opposition?"
] | {
"text": [
"divine right of kings"
],
"answer_start": [
530
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19305 | 5727bec13acd2414000deb44 | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | What historical book may have a significant impact on contemporary law making practices? | What historical book may have a significant impact on contemporary law making practices? | [
"What historical book may have a significant impact on contemporary law making practices?"
] | {
"text": [
"Bible"
],
"answer_start": [
69
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19306 | 5727bec13acd2414000deb45 | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | According to the restrictions placed on Jewish kings in Deuteronomy, ownership over what was regulated? | According to the restrictions placed on Jewish kings in Deuteronomy, ownership over what was regulated? | [
"According to the restrictions placed on Jewish kings in Deuteronomy, ownership over what was regulated?"
] | {
"text": [
"horses"
],
"answer_start": [
277
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19307 | 5a3b07613ff257001ab8439d | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | Book of the viable gives unlimited power Jewish monarchs? | Book of the viable gives unlimited power Jewish monarchs? | [
"Book of the viable gives unlimited power Jewish monarchs?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19308 | 5a3b07613ff257001ab8439e | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | Who was against the divine right of kings in England during the fifteenth century? | Who was against the divine right of kings in England during the fifteenth century? | [
"Who was against the divine right of kings in England during the fifteenth century?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19309 | 5a3b07613ff257001ab8439f | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | What book of the Bible supported the divine rule of kings | What book of the Bible supported the divine rule of kings | [
"What book of the Bible supported the divine rule of kings"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19310 | 5a3b07613ff257001ab843a0 | Rule_of_law | There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. | What group of ancient Jews could have as many wives and horses as they wanted? | What group of ancient Jews could have as many wives and horses as they wanted? | [
"What group of ancient Jews could have as many wives and horses as they wanted?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19311 | 5727c05f3acd2414000deb83 | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | To what did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke compare the law? | To what did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke compare the law? | [
"To what did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke compare the law?"
] | {
"text": [
"golden met-wand"
],
"answer_start": [
132
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19312 | 5727c05f3acd2414000deb84 | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | According to English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, what should Kings follow? | According to English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, what should Kings follow? | [
"According to English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, what should Kings follow?"
] | {
"text": [
"God and the law"
],
"answer_start": [
527
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19313 | 5727c05f3acd2414000deb85 | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | When did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke speak in the Case of Prohibitions? | When did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke speak in the Case of Prohibitions? | [
"When did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke speak in the Case of Prohibitions?"
] | {
"text": [
"1607"
],
"answer_start": [
3
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19314 | 5727c05f3acd2414000deb86 | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | How did the king feel about what was said in the Case of Prohibitions? | How did the king feel about what was said in the Case of Prohibitions? | [
"How did the king feel about what was said in the Case of Prohibitions?"
] | {
"text": [
"greatly offended"
],
"answer_start": [
272
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19315 | 5727c05f3acd2414000deb87 | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | What was Edward Coke's official title? | What was Edward Coke's official title? | [
"What was Edward Coke's official title?"
] | {
"text": [
"Chief Justice Sir"
],
"answer_start": [
17
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19316 | 5a3b093f3ff257001ab843af | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | Who called the law a golden met-wand during the sixteenth century? | Who called the law a golden met-wand during the sixteenth century? | [
"Who called the law a golden met-wand during the sixteenth century?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19317 | 5a3b093f3ff257001ab843b0 | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | According to Coke what should kings be above? | According to Coke what should kings be above? | [
"According to Coke what should kings be above?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19318 | 5a3b093f3ff257001ab843b1 | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | Who spoke about the rule of law in sixteenth century England? | Who spoke about the rule of law in sixteenth century England? | [
"Who spoke about the rule of law in sixteenth century England?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19319 | 5a3b093f3ff257001ab843b2 | Rule_of_law | In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)." | Who said it was treason to affirm the King was not subject to the law? | Who said it was treason to affirm the King was not subject to the law? | [
"Who said it was treason to affirm the King was not subject to the law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19320 | 5727c25f2ca10214002d9592 | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | What is another word for a thin definition? | What is another word for a thin definition? | [
"What is another word for a thin definition?"
] | {
"text": [
"formalist"
],
"answer_start": [
246
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19321 | 5727c25f2ca10214002d9593 | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | What is another word for a thick definition? | What is another word for a thick definition? | [
"What is another word for a thick definition?"
] | {
"text": [
"substantive"
],
"answer_start": [
284
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19322 | 5727c25f2ca10214002d9594 | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | Who commonly, or at least attempt to, abide by the rule of law? | Who commonly, or at least attempt to, abide by the rule of law? | [
"Who commonly, or at least attempt to, abide by the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [
"politicians, judges and academics"
],
"answer_start": [
20
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19323 | 5727c25f2ca10214002d9595 | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | On what do aspects of the rule of law do formalist definitions focus? | On what do aspects of the rule of law do formalist definitions focus? | [
"On what do aspects of the rule of law do formalist definitions focus?"
] | {
"text": [
"specific procedural attributes"
],
"answer_start": [
491
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19324 | 5727c25f2ca10214002d9596 | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | What is the third and lesser referred to approach on defining the rule of law? | What is the third and lesser referred to approach on defining the rule of law? | [
"What is the third and lesser referred to approach on defining the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [
"functional"
],
"answer_start": [
356
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19325 | 5a3b0aab3ff257001ab843b7 | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | Who has spoken against the rule of law? | Who has spoken against the rule of law? | [
"Who has spoken against the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19326 | 5a3b0aab3ff257001ab843b8 | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | Who uses a substantive or thin definition of rule of law? | Who uses a substantive or thin definition of rule of law? | [
"Who uses a substantive or thin definition of rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19327 | 5a3b0aab3ff257001ab843b9 | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | Who uses a formalist or thick definition of rule of law? | Who uses a formalist or thick definition of rule of law? | [
"Who uses a formalist or thick definition of rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19328 | 5a3b0aab3ff257001ab843ba | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | What definition by formalist makes a judgment about the justness of law? | What definition by formalist makes a judgment about the justness of law? | [
"What definition by formalist makes a judgment about the justness of law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19329 | 5a3b0aab3ff257001ab843bb | Rule_of_law | Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. | What conception of the rule of law excludes substantive rights? | What conception of the rule of law excludes substantive rights? | [
"What conception of the rule of law excludes substantive rights?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19330 | 5727c3d12ca10214002d95c0 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | According to legal theorists, what characteristics must the rule of law have? | According to legal theorists, what characteristics must the rule of law have? | [
"According to legal theorists, what characteristics must the rule of law have?"
] | {
"text": [
"generality, equality, and certainty"
],
"answer_start": [
198
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19331 | 5727c3d12ca10214002d95c1 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | According to some, what is the rule of law is formed to protect? | According to some, what is the rule of law is formed to protect? | [
"According to some, what is the rule of law is formed to protect?"
] | {
"text": [
"individual rights"
],
"answer_start": [
408
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19332 | 5727c3d12ca10214002d95c2 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | What system of government is considered as a component of the rule of law? | What system of government is considered as a component of the rule of law? | [
"What system of government is considered as a component of the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [
"democracy"
],
"answer_start": [
645
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19333 | 5727c3d12ca10214002d95c3 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | According to some legal theorists, for what are there no requirements for something to be considered a law? | According to some legal theorists, for what are there no requirements for something to be considered a law? | [
"According to some legal theorists, for what are there no requirements for something to be considered a law?"
] | {
"text": [
"content"
],
"answer_start": [
284
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19334 | 5727c3d12ca10214002d95c4 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | What are the two approaches to defining the concept of the rule of law? | What are the two approaches to defining the concept of the rule of law? | [
"What are the two approaches to defining the concept of the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [
"formal and substantive"
],
"answer_start": [
554
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19335 | 5a3b16693ff257001ab843d5 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | Who believes that the rule of law has no formal characteristics? | Who believes that the rule of law has no formal characteristics? | [
"Who believes that the rule of law has no formal characteristics?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19336 | 5a3b16693ff257001ab843d6 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | What characteristics do most legal theorists say the rule of law cannot possess? | What characteristics do most legal theorists say the rule of law cannot possess? | [
"What characteristics do most legal theorists say the rule of law cannot possess?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19337 | 5a3b16693ff257001ab843d7 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | What does not protect individual rights? | What does not protect individual rights? | [
"What does not protect individual rights?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19338 | 5a3b16693ff257001ab843d8 | Rule_of_law | Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law. | What two concepts defined rule without law? | What two concepts defined rule without law? | [
"What two concepts defined rule without law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19339 | 5727c6252ca10214002d9600 | Rule_of_law | The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights. | Which interpretation of the rule of law is used on a larger scale? | Which interpretation of the rule of law is used on a larger scale? | [
"Which interpretation of the rule of law is used on a larger scale?"
] | {
"text": [
"formal"
],
"answer_start": [
5
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19340 | 5727c6252ca10214002d9601 | Rule_of_law | The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights. | According to the formalist approach, what else, besides democracy, can laws protect? | According to the formalist approach, what else, besides democracy, can laws protect? | [
"According to the formalist approach, what else, besides democracy, can laws protect?"
] | {
"text": [
"individual rights"
],
"answer_start": [
361
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19341 | 5727c6252ca10214002d9602 | Rule_of_law | The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights. | According to the formalist approach, how much notoriety must a law have? | According to the formalist approach, how much notoriety must a law have? | [
"According to the formalist approach, how much notoriety must a law have?"
] | {
"text": [
"well-known"
],
"answer_start": [
136
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19342 | 5727c6252ca10214002d9603 | Rule_of_law | The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights. | How many requirements for content are there for the rule of law under the formalist approach? | How many requirements for content are there for the rule of law under the formalist approach? | [
"How many requirements for content are there for the rule of law under the formalist approach?"
] | {
"text": [
"no requirements"
],
"answer_start": [
255
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19343 | 5727c6252ca10214002d9604 | Rule_of_law | The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights. | Which interpretation of the rule of law is less commonly used? | Which interpretation of the rule of law is less commonly used? | [
"Which interpretation of the rule of law is less commonly used?"
] | {
"text": [
"substantive"
],
"answer_start": [
57
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19344 | 5727c7a7ff5b5019007d950e | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | According to the functional interpretation, what principle is opposite of the rule of man? | According to the functional interpretation, what principle is opposite of the rule of man? | [
"According to the functional interpretation, what principle is opposite of the rule of man?"
] | {
"text": [
"rule of law"
],
"answer_start": [
121
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19345 | 5727c7a7ff5b5019007d950f | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | What level of discretion do governments with a high degree of the "rule of law" have? | What level of discretion do governments with a high degree of the "rule of law" have? | [
"What level of discretion do governments with a high degree of the \"rule of law\" have?"
] | {
"text": [
"little"
],
"answer_start": [
350
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19346 | 5727c7a7ff5b5019007d9510 | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | What level of discretion do governments with a low degree of the "rule of law" have? | What level of discretion do governments with a low degree of the "rule of law" have? | [
"What level of discretion do governments with a low degree of the \"rule of law\" have?"
] | {
"text": [
"a great deal"
],
"answer_start": [
236
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19347 | 5727c7a7ff5b5019007d9511 | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | What happens to those that do not follow to the rule of law? | What happens to those that do not follow to the rule of law? | [
"What happens to those that do not follow to the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [
"punishment"
],
"answer_start": [
456
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19348 | 5727c7a7ff5b5019007d9512 | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | What fights against the rule of law? | What fights against the rule of law? | [
"What fights against the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [
"flexibility"
],
"answer_start": [
627
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19349 | 5a3b309a3ff257001ab843dd | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | What does a Society have a high degree of if its government officers have a great deal of discretion? | What does a Society have a high degree of if its government officers have a great deal of discretion? | [
"What does a Society have a high degree of if its government officers have a great deal of discretion?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19350 | 5a3b309a3ff257001ab843de | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | What does a society have a low degree of if its government officials have little disctetion? | What does a society have a low degree of if its government officials have little disctetion? | [
"What does a society have a low degree of if its government officials have little disctetion?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19351 | 5a3b309a3ff257001ab843df | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | What is necessary for offenses that are justifiable unter statutory law but not natural law? | What is necessary for offenses that are justifiable unter statutory law but not natural law? | [
"What is necessary for offenses that are justifiable unter statutory law but not natural law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19352 | 5a3b309a3ff257001ab843e0 | Rule_of_law | The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable. | What is flexibility compatible with? | What is flexibility compatible with? | [
"What is flexibility compatible with? "
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19353 | 5727cc002ca10214002d9680 | Rule_of_law | The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). | For how many countries have rule of law aggregate measurements been developed? | For how many countries have rule of law aggregate measurements been developed? | [
"For how many countries have rule of law aggregate measurements been developed?"
] | {
"text": [
"more than 200 countries"
],
"answer_start": [
545
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19354 | 5727cc002ca10214002d9681 | Rule_of_law | The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). | What is the term that described a government based on the rule of law? | What is the term that described a government based on the rule of law? | [
"What is the term that described a government based on the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [
"nomocracy"
],
"answer_start": [
651
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19355 | 5727cc002ca10214002d9682 | Rule_of_law | The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). | What is the Greek word for law? | What is the Greek word for law? | [
"What is the Greek word for law?"
] | {
"text": [
"nomos"
],
"answer_start": [
678
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19356 | 5727cc002ca10214002d9683 | Rule_of_law | The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). | What is the Greek word for power? | What is the Greek word for power? | [
"What is the Greek word for power?"
] | {
"text": [
"kratos"
],
"answer_start": [
694
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19357 | 5727cc002ca10214002d9684 | Rule_of_law | The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). | What is a key qualifier for determining good governance? | What is a key qualifier for determining good governance? | [
"What is a key qualifier for determining good governance?"
] | {
"text": [
"rule of law"
],
"answer_start": [
4
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19358 | 5a3b3c203ff257001ab843e5 | Rule_of_law | The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). | What is the law of man a key dimension of? | What is the law of man a key dimension of? | [
"What is the law of man a key dimension of?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19359 | 5a3b3c203ff257001ab843e6 | Rule_of_law | The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). | What defines a rule of law is the extent to which people agree with the rules of society? | What defines a rule of law is the extent to which people agree with the rules of society? | [
"What defines a rule of law is the extent to which people agree with the rules of society?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19360 | 5a3b3c203ff257001ab843e7 | Rule_of_law | The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). | What is the Greek word for natural law? | What is the Greek word for natural law? | [
"What is the Greek word for natural law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19361 | 5727ccf43acd2414000decbd | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | What does the President and Supreme Court Justices vow to stand by? | What does the President and Supreme Court Justices vow to stand by? | [
"What does the President and Supreme Court Justices vow to stand by?"
] | {
"text": [
"the Constitution"
],
"answer_start": [
201
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19362 | 5727ccf43acd2414000decbe | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | According to the Constitution, what is superior to the rules of man? | According to the Constitution, what is superior to the rules of man? | [
"According to the Constitution, what is superior to the rules of man?"
] | {
"text": [
"rule of law"
],
"answer_start": [
247
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19363 | 5727ce98ff5b5019007d95a6 | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | What do the President and Supreme Court justices vow to uphold? | What do the President and Supreme Court justices vow to uphold? | [
"What do the President and Supreme Court justices vow to uphold?"
] | {
"text": [
"the Constitution"
],
"answer_start": [
201
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19364 | 5727ce98ff5b5019007d95a7 | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | According to the Constitution, to what is the rule of law superior? | According to the Constitution, to what is the rule of law superior? | [
"According to the Constitution, to what is the rule of law superior?"
] | {
"text": [
"the rule of any human leader"
],
"answer_start": [
274
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19365 | 5727ce98ff5b5019007d95a8 | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | What branch of the government has prosecutorial discretion? | What branch of the government has prosecutorial discretion? | [
"What branch of the government has prosecutorial discretion?"
] | {
"text": [
"executive branch"
],
"answer_start": [
635
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19366 | 5727ce98ff5b5019007d95a9 | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | What branch of government can determine what acts it writes? | What branch of government can determine what acts it writes? | [
"What branch of government can determine what acts it writes?"
] | {
"text": [
"legislative branch"
],
"answer_start": [
378
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19367 | 5727ce98ff5b5019007d95aa | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | Which branch of government has judicial discretion? | Which branch of government has judicial discretion? | [
"Which branch of government has judicial discretion?"
] | {
"text": [
"judicial branch"
],
"answer_start": [
574
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19368 | 5a3b44b53ff257001ab843eb | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | The president of the United States is the only government officer to make what pledge? | The president of the United States is the only government officer to make what pledge? | [
"The president of the United States is the only government officer to make what pledge?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19369 | 5a3b44b53ff257001ab843ec | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | What does a firm that natural law is superior to the rule of law? | What does a firm that natural law is superior to the rule of law? | [
"What does a firm that natural law is superior to the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19370 | 5a3b44b53ff257001ab843ed | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | What does executive branch of little discretion over? | What does executive branch of little discretion over? | [
"What does executive branch of little discretion over?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19371 | 5a3b44b53ff257001ab843ee | Rule_of_law | All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion. | According to the Constitution what is rule of human leader superior to? | According to the Constitution what is rule of human leader superior to? | [
"According to the Constitution what is rule of human leader superior to?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19372 | 5727d1372ca10214002d9746 | Rule_of_law | Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all. | Who disagrees with the ideas proposed by John Harrison? | Who disagrees with the ideas proposed by John Harrison? | [
"Who disagrees with the ideas proposed by John Harrison?"
] | {
"text": [
"Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks"
],
"answer_start": [
443
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19373 | 5727d1372ca10214002d9747 | Rule_of_law | Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all. | For what body of principles is it debated whether or not it was constructed according to the rule of law? | For what body of principles is it debated whether or not it was constructed according to the rule of law? | [
"For what body of principles is it debated whether or not it was constructed according to the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [
"U.S. Constitution"
],
"answer_start": [
40
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19374 | 5727d1372ca10214002d9748 | Rule_of_law | Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all. | According to John Harrison, through the Constitution, what is law? | According to John Harrison, through the Constitution, what is law? | [
"According to John Harrison, through the Constitution, what is law?"
] | {
"text": [
"that which is legally binding"
],
"answer_start": [
234
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19375 | 5727d1372ca10214002d9749 | Rule_of_law | Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all. | According to Frederick Mark Gedicks, who believed that unjust laws were not really laws? | According to Frederick Mark Gedicks, who believed that unjust laws were not really laws? | [
"According to Frederick Mark Gedicks, who believed that unjust laws were not really laws?"
] | {
"text": [
"the framers of the U.S. Constitution"
],
"answer_start": [
543
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19376 | 5a3b474b3ff257001ab843f3 | Rule_of_law | Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all. | Who argues over whether the U.S. Constitution adopted the rule of law? | Who argues over whether the U.S. Constitution adopted the rule of law? | [
"Who argues over whether the U.S. Constitution adopted the rule of law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19377 | 5a3b474b3ff257001ab843f4 | Rule_of_law | Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all. | What law professor says the Constitution does it meet either the formal or substantive? | What law professor says the Constitution does it meet either the formal or substantive? | [
"What law professor says the Constitution does it meet either the formal or substantive?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19378 | 5a3b474b3ff257001ab843f5 | Rule_of_law | Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all. | Who believed that an unjust law was still a law? | Who believed that an unjust law was still a law? | [
"Who believed that an unjust law was still a law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19379 | 5a3b474b3ff257001ab843f6 | Rule_of_law | Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all. | The framers of the Constitution say did not have discretion to decide which laws submit such vague criteria? | The framers of the Constitution say did not have discretion to decide which laws submit such vague criteria? | [
"The framers of the Constitution say did not have discretion to decide which laws submit such vague criteria?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19380 | 5727d29d2ca10214002d9760 | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | When was a compromise reached over administrative procedures for law determination? | When was a compromise reached over administrative procedures for law determination? | [
"When was a compromise reached over administrative procedures for law determination?"
] | {
"text": [
"1941"
],
"answer_start": [
1151
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19381 | 5727d29d2ca10214002d9761 | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | Who can determine if a law should be approached differently? | Who can determine if a law should be approached differently? | [
"Who can determine if a law should be approached differently?"
] | {
"text": [
"administrators"
],
"answer_start": [
110
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19382 | 5727d29d2ca10214002d9762 | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | Who should be able to challenge administrative orders in court? | Who should be able to challenge administrative orders in court? | [
"Who should be able to challenge administrative orders in court?"
] | {
"text": [
"individuals"
],
"answer_start": [
453
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19383 | 5727d29d2ca10214002d9763 | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | Who was Charles Evans Hughes? | Who was Charles Evans Hughes? | [
"Who was Charles Evans Hughes?"
] | {
"text": [
"a Chief Justice of the United States"
],
"answer_start": [
1008
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19384 | 5a3b502a3ff257001ab843fb | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | What cannot survive if administrators can't exercise discretion? | What cannot survive if administrators can't exercise discretion? | [
"What cannot survive if administrators can't exercise discretion?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19385 | 5a3b502a3ff257001ab843fc | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | Who said no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer except for breaching natural law? | Who said no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer except for breaching natural law? | [
"Who said no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer except for breaching natural law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19386 | 5a3b502a3ff257001ab843fd | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | Who said the individual should not be able to challenge administrative order? | Who said the individual should not be able to challenge administrative order? | [
"Who said the individual should not be able to challenge administrative order?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19387 | 5a3b502a3ff257001ab843fe | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | Who did Dicey believe administration should be done by? | Who did Dicey believe administration should be done by? | [
"Who did Dicey believe administration should be done by?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19388 | 5a3b502a3ff257001ab843ff | Rule_of_law | Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form. | Whose rule of law was transformed by compromise in the nineteenth century? | Whose rule of law was transformed by compromise in the nineteenth century? | [
"Whose rule of law was transformed by compromise in the nineteenth century?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19389 | 5727d3cf3acd2414000ded7d | Rule_of_law | James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law." | When was the Philadelphia Convention? | When was the Philadelphia Convention? | [
"When was the Philadelphia Convention?"
] | {
"text": [
"1787"
],
"answer_start": [
56
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19390 | 5727d3cf3acd2414000ded7e | Rule_of_law | James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law." | Who spoke at the Philadelphia Convention about the potential chaos from not having judges be able to enforce laws? | Who spoke at the Philadelphia Convention about the potential chaos from not having judges be able to enforce laws? | [
"Who spoke at the Philadelphia Convention about the potential chaos from not having judges be able to enforce laws?"
] | {
"text": [
"James Wilson"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19391 | 5727d3cf3acd2414000ded7f | Rule_of_law | James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law." | What was John Marshall's title? | What was John Marshall's title? | [
"What was John Marshall's title?"
] | {
"text": [
"Chief Justice"
],
"answer_start": [
506
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19392 | 5727d3cf3acd2414000ded80 | Rule_of_law | James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law." | What did George Mason state that judges could do to a law? | What did George Mason state that judges could do to a law? | [
"What did George Mason state that judges could do to a law?"
] | {
"text": [
"declare an unconstitutional law void"
],
"answer_start": [
274
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19393 | 5a3b53383ff257001ab84405 | Rule_of_law | James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law." | Who said that laws may be just, wise or dangerous? | Who said that laws may be just, wise or dangerous? | [
"Who said that laws may be just, wise or dangerous?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19394 | 5a3b53383ff257001ab84406 | Rule_of_law | James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law." | What convention took place in the seventeenth century? | What convention took place in the seventeenth century? | [
"What convention took place in the seventeenth century?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19395 | 5a3b53383ff257001ab84407 | Rule_of_law | James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law." | What position to Chief Justice Marshall take in the eighteenth century? | What position to Chief Justice Marshall take in the eighteenth century? | [
"What position to Chief Justice Marshall take in the eighteenth century?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19396 | 5a3b53383ff257001ab84408 | Rule_of_law | James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law." | Who did George Mason say could not declare a law unconstitutional | Who did George Mason say could not declare a law unconstitutional | [
"Who did George Mason say could not declare a law unconstitutional"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19397 | 5727d6363acd2414000dedc1 | Rule_of_law | East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and Legalism, which advocated strict adherence to law. The influence of one school of thought over the other has varied throughout the centuries. One study indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a law-bound state. According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Thailand, Cambodia, and most of Asia is weak or nonexistent: | What East Asian philosophy emphasized virtuous leadership? | What East Asian philosophy emphasized virtuous leadership? | [
"What East Asian philosophy emphasized virtuous leadership? "
] | {
"text": [
"Confucianism"
],
"answer_start": [
62
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19398 | 5727d6363acd2414000dedc2 | Rule_of_law | East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and Legalism, which advocated strict adherence to law. The influence of one school of thought over the other has varied throughout the centuries. One study indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a law-bound state. According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Thailand, Cambodia, and most of Asia is weak or nonexistent: | What East Asian philosophy emphasized unwavering rule following? | What East Asian philosophy emphasized unwavering rule following? | [
"What East Asian philosophy emphasized unwavering rule following?"
] | {
"text": [
"Legalism"
],
"answer_start": [
164
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-19399 | 5727d6363acd2414000dedc3 | Rule_of_law | East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and Legalism, which advocated strict adherence to law. The influence of one school of thought over the other has varied throughout the centuries. One study indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a law-bound state. According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Thailand, Cambodia, and most of Asia is weak or nonexistent: | How strong is the rule of law in most Asian countries? | How strong is the rule of law in most Asian countries? | [
"How strong is the rule of law in most Asian countries?"
] | {
"text": [
"weak or nonexistent"
],
"answer_start": [
605
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.