Enter a player name to begin or load your saved progress.
The literal translation of the Latin phrase 'de jure' is 'from law'.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Latin phrase 'de jure' literally translates to 'from law', indicating a basis in legal principles or statutes.
The term 'de jure' originates from Greek words meaning 'by right'.
Answer: False
Explanation: The term 'de jure' originates from Latin, not Greek. Its components signify 'from law' or 'by law'.
In the etymology of 'de jure', the Latin word 'jus' signifies 'justice'.
Answer: False
Explanation: In the etymology of 'de jure', the Latin word 'jus' signifies 'law', not 'justice'. This is crucial for understanding the term's legal connotation.
In the phrase 'de jure', the Latin word 'de' means 'law'.
Answer: False
Explanation: In the phrase 'de jure', the Latin word 'de' signifies 'from' or 'of', not 'law'.
The Latin word 'jure' in 'de jure' is derived from 'jus', meaning 'law'.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Latin word 'jure' in 'de jure' is the adjectival form derived from 'jus', which signifies 'law'.
What is the literal translation of the Latin phrase 'de jure'?
Answer: From law
Explanation: The Latin phrase 'de jure' literally translates to 'from law', indicating a basis in legal principles or statutes.
What are the etymological origins of the term 'de jure'?
Answer: Latin, composed of 'de' (from/of) and 'jure' (law).
Explanation: The term 'de jure' originates from Latin, with 'de' meaning 'from' or 'of', and 'jure' being derived from 'jus', meaning 'law'.
What does the Latin word 'jus' signify in the etymology of 'de jure'?
Answer: Law
Explanation: In the etymology of 'de jure', the Latin word 'jus' signifies 'law'. This root word is fundamental to the term's legal meaning.
In the phrase 'de jure', what does the Latin word 'de' mean?
Answer: From or of
Explanation: In the phrase 'de jure', the Latin word 'de' signifies 'from' or 'of', indicating origin or derivation.
What does the Latin word 'jure' signify in the phrase 'de jure'?
Answer: Law (derived from 'jus')
Explanation: The Latin word 'jure' in 'de jure' is the adjectival form derived from 'jus', which signifies 'law'. This root word is fundamental to the term's legal meaning.
In legal and governmental contexts, 'de jure' describes practices that are only recognized if they exist in reality.
Answer: False
Explanation: 'De jure' describes practices that are legally established or formally recognized, irrespective of their actual existence in reality. The concept that describes practices existing in reality is 'de facto'.
'De jure' refers to what is legally established, while 'de facto' refers to what exists in reality.
Answer: True
Explanation: This statement accurately captures the fundamental distinction: 'de jure' pertains to legal or official status, while 'de facto' pertains to the actual state of affairs.
Practices existing 'de facto' are those that are formally approved by law but may not exist in reality.
Answer: False
Explanation: 'De facto' refers to practices that exist and function in reality, irrespective of formal legal recognition. Practices formally approved by law but not existing in reality would be 'de jure' in name only.
Being 'de jure' subject to another power means being subordinate in reality, regardless of formal agreements.
Answer: False
Explanation: Being 'de jure' subject to another power signifies formal subordination according to law or agreement, which may or may not align with the actual power dynamics ('de facto' status).
The Oxford citation defines 'de facto' as situations that are legally established and formally recognized.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Oxford citation defines 'de facto' as describing situations that exist in reality, irrespective of formal legal recognition or establishment.
How does the concept of 'de jure' contrast with 'de facto'?
Answer: 'De jure' describes what is legally established, while 'de facto' describes what exists in reality.
Explanation: The fundamental contrast is that 'de jure' pertains to legal or official status, while 'de facto' pertains to the actual state of affairs or factual existence.
How is the existence of practices or situations 'de facto' defined?
Answer: They are present and functioning in reality, regardless of formal legal recognition.
Explanation: 'De facto' refers to situations or practices that exist and operate in reality, irrespective of their formal legal status or official recognition.
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary citation defines 'de facto' as describing situations that:
Answer: Exist in reality, even if not formally recognized.
Explanation: The citation from OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com defines 'de facto' as describing situations that exist in reality, even if not formally recognized.
Which concept describes situations that exist in reality, regardless of official legal recognition?
Answer: De facto
Explanation: 'De facto' refers to situations or practices that exist and operate in reality, irrespective of their formal legal status or official recognition.
When practices are officially recognized 'de jure', it means they are formally established by legal statutes or authoritative norms.
Answer: True
Explanation: Official recognition of practices or situations as 'de jure' signifies their formal establishment through legal statutes, authoritative norms, or governmental decrees, conferring legal status.
The phrase 'de jure' signifies a structural argument based on established laws or formal legal principles.
Answer: True
Explanation: The phrase 'de jure' signifies a position or argument grounded in established laws or formal legal principles.
In the context of law and government, what does the term 'de jure' describe?
Answer: Practices that are legally established or formally recognized, irrespective of their actual existence.
Explanation: In legal and governmental contexts, 'de jure' denotes that which is legally established, officially sanctioned, or formally recognized by law, regardless of whether it is actually implemented or exists in practice.
What does it mean for practices or situations to be officially recognized 'de jure'?
Answer: They are formally acknowledged and established by legal statutes or authoritative norms.
Explanation: Official recognition of practices or situations as 'de jure' signifies their formal establishment through legal statutes, authoritative norms, or governmental decrees, conferring legal status.
The U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 is cited as significant for the distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation.
Answer: True
Explanation: The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is critically significant for establishing and differentiating between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation within the American legal framework.
'De jure' segregation in U.S. law is defined as segregation arising from voluntary associations and residential patterns.
Answer: False
Explanation: 'De jure' segregation, within the context of U.S. law, is defined as segregation that arises from explicit legal mandates or governmental policies, distinct from patterns emerging from social or residential choices.
'De facto' segregation in U.S. law is defined as segregation that exists because of explicit laws mandating separation.
Answer: False
Explanation: 'De facto' segregation, within the context of U.S. law, is defined as segregation that arises from social, economic, or residential patterns, rather than from explicit legal statutes requiring separation.
The distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation became significant in the U.S. for defining historical origins.
Answer: False
Explanation: The distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation became legally significant in the U.S. primarily for the purpose of implementing court-ordered remedies, rather than solely for defining historical origins.
The Muhammad Ali dynasty in Egypt (1805-1914) is used as a historical example illustrating 'de jure' and 'de facto' status.
Answer: True
Explanation: The historical period of the Muhammad Ali dynasty in Egypt (1805-1914) serves as a salient case study illustrating the divergence between 'de jure' status and 'de facto' governance.
Between 1805 and 1914, the Muhammad Ali dynasty was 'de jure' the independent ruler of Egypt.
Answer: False
Explanation: Between 1805 and 1914, the Muhammad Ali dynasty was formally, or 'de jure', subject to the Ottoman Empire, rather than being an independent ruler.
Despite being 'de jure' subject to the Ottoman Empire, the Muhammad Ali dynasty acted as 'de facto' rulers of Egypt.
Answer: True
Explanation: Despite its formal 'de jure' subjection to the Ottoman Empire, the Muhammad Ali dynasty exercised significant autonomy, functioning as the 'de facto' rulers of Egypt.
The book 'The Unfinished Agenda of Brown V. Board of Education' is cited regarding the historical context of 'de facto' segregation.
Answer: False
Explanation: The book 'The Unfinished Agenda of Brown V. Board of Education' is cited in relation to the implications of the Brown v. Board of Education case for segregation, not specifically for the historical context of 'de facto' segregation.
Which specific U.S. Supreme Court case from 1954 is mentioned as being significant for the distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation?
Answer: Brown v. Board of Education
Explanation: The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is critically significant for establishing and differentiating between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation within the American legal framework.
In the context of U.S. law, how is 'de jure' segregation defined?
Answer: Segregation that exists specifically because of local laws mandating separation.
Explanation: 'De jure' segregation, within the context of U.S. law, is defined as segregation that arises from explicit legal mandates or governmental policies, distinct from patterns emerging from social or residential choices.
According to the text, how is 'de facto' segregation defined in the context of U.S. law (post-Brown v. Board)?
Answer: Segregation that exists due to voluntary associations and residential patterns.
Explanation: 'De facto' segregation, within the context of U.S. law, is defined as segregation that arises from social, economic, or residential patterns, rather than from explicit legal statutes requiring separation.
For what primary legal purpose did the distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation become significant in the United States?
Answer: For court-mandated remedial purposes.
Explanation: The distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation became legally significant in the U.S. primarily for the purpose of implementing court-ordered remedies, rather than solely for defining historical origins.
What historical example is used in the text to illustrate the difference between 'de jure' and 'de facto' status?
Answer: The Muhammad Ali dynasty in Egypt (1805-1914).
Explanation: The historical period of the Muhammad Ali dynasty in Egypt (1805-1914) serves as a salient case study illustrating the divergence between 'de jure' status and 'de facto' governance.
What was the 'de jure' relationship of the Muhammad Ali dynasty of Egypt to the Ottoman Empire between 1805 and 1914?
Answer: They were 'de jure' subject to the rulers of the Ottoman Empire.
Explanation: Between 1805 and 1914, the Muhammad Ali dynasty was formally, or 'de jure', subject to the Ottoman Empire, meaning they were officially under Ottoman suzerainty.
How did the Muhammad Ali dynasty function in practice ('de facto') during 1805-1914?
Answer: They acted as 'de facto' rulers of Egypt, maintaining significant independence.
Explanation: Despite its formal 'de jure' subjection to the Ottoman Empire, the Muhammad Ali dynasty exercised significant autonomy, functioning as the 'de facto' rulers of Egypt.
What is the specific subject matter of the book 'The Unfinished Agenda of Brown V. Board of Education' as cited in the text?
Answer: The implications of the Brown v. Board of Education case for segregation.
Explanation: The book 'The Unfinished Agenda of Brown V. Board of Education' is cited in relation to the implications of the Brown v. Board of Education case for segregation.
Which of the following best describes 'de jure' segregation as defined in the text?
Answer: Segregation enforced by specific laws or government actions.
Explanation: 'De jure' segregation, within the context of U.S. law, is defined as segregation that arises from explicit legal mandates or governmental policies, distinct from patterns emerging from social or residential choices.
The Muhammad Ali dynasty's rule in Egypt (1805-1914) serves as a key example of:
Answer: 'De facto' rule despite 'de jure' subjection.
Explanation: The Muhammad Ali dynasty's rule exemplifies a situation where formal ('de jure') subjection to the Ottoman Empire coexisted with practical ('de facto') independence and governance of Egypt.
The distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation became particularly important in the U.S. following the Brown v. Board of Education decision for what reason?
Answer: Implementing court-ordered remedies.
Explanation: The distinction between 'de jure' and 'de facto' segregation became legally significant in the U.S. primarily for the purpose of implementing court-ordered remedies, rather than solely for defining historical origins.
'De jure' borders are defined by the territory a government officially claims, not necessarily by what it controls.
Answer: True
Explanation: 'De jure' borders are demarcated by the territory a government officially claims through legal assertion or formal recognition, irrespective of the extent of its actual control or administration.
The key difference between 'de jure' borders and controlled territory is that 'de jure' implies actual governance.
Answer: False
Explanation: The critical distinction between 'de jure' borders and territory under 'de facto' control lies in the nature of the claim: 'de jure' represents a legal assertion, while 'de facto' control signifies actual governance and administration.
Taiwan is presented as an example where China exercises 'de facto' control despite not having 'de jure' sovereignty.
Answer: False
Explanation: Taiwan is presented as an example where China asserts 'de jure' sovereignty, yet does not exercise 'de facto' control over the island, highlighting a discrepancy between legal claim and actual governance.
Kashmir is cited as an example where multiple countries assert legal claims, illustrating 'de jure' borders.
Answer: True
Explanation: Kashmir is cited as an example illustrating complex 'de jure' borders, characterized by multiple nations asserting legal claims over the territory.
What do 'de jure' borders of a country represent?
Answer: The territory a government officially claims by law or formal assertion.
Explanation: 'De jure' borders represent the territory a government officially claims through legal assertion or formal recognition, irrespective of the extent of its actual control or administration.
What distinguishes 'de jure' borders from territory a government actually controls?
Answer: 'De jure' borders represent a legal claim, while control implies actual governance.
Explanation: The critical distinction is that 'de jure' borders represent a legal assertion of territory, whereas 'de facto' control signifies actual governance and administration over that land.
Which territory is mentioned as an example where China claims sovereignty ('de jure') but does not exercise actual control ('de facto')?
Answer: Taiwan
Explanation: Taiwan is presented as an example where China asserts 'de jure' sovereignty, yet does not exercise 'de facto' control over the island, highlighting a discrepancy between legal claim and actual governance.
Which territory is cited as an example of 'de jure' borders due to multiple countries asserting legal claims?
Answer: Kashmir
Explanation: Kashmir is cited as an example illustrating complex 'de jure' borders, characterized by multiple nations asserting legal claims over the territory.
According to the text, 'de jure' borders are primarily based on:
Answer: Official government claims and legal assertions.
Explanation: 'De jure' borders represent the territory a government officially claims through legal assertion or formal recognition, irrespective of the extent of its actual control or administration.