จากบทความด้านบน ฉันเห็นด้วยเพราะa l

From the above article. I agree, because a law which calls to duty by its commands, and restrains from evil by its prohibition and It is a sacred obligation to not attempt to legislate in contradiction to this law, nor may derogate from nor abrogated it, but that it is the last paragraph does not agree with the law should be changed according to the era, because the former regime will be developed, for example, there are many Internet technologies. Make everyday life of the people has changed. So if we take the original, there is no comprehensive law and cause more evil is made by, or it may be legal, because not everything has been changed from the original.

From the above article I agree that a law which calls to duty by its commands, and restrains from evil by its prohibition and It is a sacred obligation not to attempt to legislate in contradiction to this law, nor may it derogate from nor abrogated, but it's there. The last paragraph does not agree that the law should be changed with age because the former will develop steadily. For example, current technology Internet Making the daily lives of people changed. Therefore, if we take the original law would not cover. And cause an increase of evil or law, it may not be because everything has changed from then.

From the article above, I agree, because a law which calls to duty by, its commands and restrains from evil by its prohibition. And It is a sacred obligation not to attempt to legislate in contradiction to, this law nor may it derogate from, nor abrogatedBut there the last paragraph disagree because the law should be changed according to age, because the former will develop gradually, such as to erect a technology. The Internet makes the daily life of people change.The evil increases with or the law might not because everything has changed from the original.