Why is interpretation a problem with laws? I need this ASAP. I'm filling out a study guide so I can study for my test today.

The interpretation of laws in general aims to focus on a certain legal relationship, clearly and accurately identifying the rule established by the legislator and which must be applied to the specific case.

And, this is not to be confused with the legal hermeneutics that corresponds to the part of Law as a science whose object is the study and systematization of the processes that must be used for the interpretation to take place.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.