In her opinion, the foundation of local force can be traced back to colonial America; from massive diversity arose conflicts that could be resolved only through actions of the court. She states: “Ethnic and other forms of inter-group conflict might appear before the selectmen or in court as requests for clarification of property rights…or as complaints of lying or cheating. In this way, routine petitions of local residents became vehicles for influencing political contests, for creating rights and defining obligations, and for shaping notions of justice” (Yngvesson). Yngvesson further writes: “Research on colonial culture suggests that this familiarity was linked to a paternalistic society in which the magistrates who sat in county courts (like the English gentry from which some of them derived) were ‘revered . . . and looked to for protection’” (Yngvesson). Thus, the unstable and unpredictable nature of colonial life led the colonists to trust in the courts for protection and guidance. However, as the United States, once officially formed, became more developed, the directive of the court was more interpretive to ensure that the rights of the citizens were met rather than continuing to be an agent of public policy. Yngvesson writes: “The professionalization of law and the growth of a powerful and selfconscious legal elite in the eighteenth century led to an increasing stratification of forums and a transformation in the meaning of the county court from an institution that joined law and governance to one that existed largely to separate the spheres of each” (Yngvesson). Considering the influence of the principle of separation of powers, the United States established three branches of government. Yngvesson describes the transition from the unstable network of colonies to the
In her opinion, the foundation of local force can be traced back to colonial America; from massive diversity arose conflicts that could be resolved only through actions of the court. She states: “Ethnic and other forms of inter-group conflict might appear before the selectmen or in court as requests for clarification of property rights…or as complaints of lying or cheating. In this way, routine petitions of local residents became vehicles for influencing political contests, for creating rights and defining obligations, and for shaping notions of justice” (Yngvesson). Yngvesson further writes: “Research on colonial culture suggests that this familiarity was linked to a paternalistic society in which the magistrates who sat in county courts (like the English gentry from which some of them derived) were ‘revered . . . and looked to for protection’” (Yngvesson). Thus, the unstable and unpredictable nature of colonial life led the colonists to trust in the courts for protection and guidance. However, as the United States, once officially formed, became more developed, the directive of the court was more interpretive to ensure that the rights of the citizens were met rather than continuing to be an agent of public policy. Yngvesson writes: “The professionalization of law and the growth of a powerful and selfconscious legal elite in the eighteenth century led to an increasing stratification of forums and a transformation in the meaning of the county court from an institution that joined law and governance to one that existed largely to separate the spheres of each” (Yngvesson). Considering the influence of the principle of separation of powers, the United States established three branches of government. Yngvesson describes the transition from the unstable network of colonies to the