Precedents are dictated through Constitutional Amendments? Dude, you honestly have no fucking clue what you're talking about re: US law and Constitution.Cybargs wrote:
And all those precedents are through constitutional amendments, not common law. Those judgements in the US are not considered in other common law governments either.
It is different in the UK and Aus. We have laws restricting right to protest and public order offences which are legally valid due to a lack of bill of rights. It's entirely a huge debate here in aus. Singapore is a perfect example of a common law system where legislature has essentially nullified most common law rights.
The alternative is the Continental system which throws out precedent and each judge makes his own judgement regarding the law. The problem there is you end up with wildly different judgements based on the judges prejudices.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Common law precedents can be taken everywhere. Jurisdictions always look to overseas common law sources first. The common law spans everything from contracts, torts, criminal law etc. An example I can give you is that the statute on murder has completely replaced the common law definition. In common law homicide, there is not distinction between murder and manslaughter, statutes have replaced it everywhere.Jay wrote:
Our legal system is based completely on theirs circa 1775. We've diverged since then, of course, but it comes from the same place and has the same basis in precedent and case law.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm not going to pretend to understand the British Legal system in any way more than a cursory understanding. But I do understand logic. If a Constitution is the only thing stopping the UK government from acting in a certain way, then why would they need to pass a law before they kill all the jews? Couldn't they just do it?Cybargs wrote:
Yeah pretty much.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
oh i get it now. Without a constitution, England CAN wontonly kill it's own citizens without putting them on trial. The only thing that will stop them from doing so is a CONSTITUTION!!! Something about RAF and serving against the enemies of Britain blah blah. Do you think about what you type before you type it, or are you just firing from the hip for the sake of replying?
UK gov can pass any legislation whatever the fuck it wants. It can pass a law to kill all the jews tomorrow and it'd be legal. Ever heard of AV Dicey?That's because its a constitutional issue, not a common law one.Lord Reid expressed in Pickin v British Railway Board :
“in earlier times many learned lawyers seem to have believed that an Act of parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of parliament was finally demonstrated by the revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete.”
Remember 8th grade history class where they made you memorize the amendments and told you how important they are? Then you become an adult and realize that you'd have to read 240 years of case law to actually find out what the amendments mean today... and that instead of a few sentences, they'd each be a thousand pages long.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Precedents are dictated through Constitutional Amendments? Dude, you honestly have no fucking clue what you're talking about re: US law and Constitution.Cybargs wrote:
And all those precedents are through constitutional amendments, not common law. Those judgements in the US are not considered in other common law governments either.
It is different in the UK and Aus. We have laws restricting right to protest and public order offences which are legally valid due to a lack of bill of rights. It's entirely a huge debate here in aus. Singapore is a perfect example of a common law system where legislature has essentially nullified most common law rights.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No, I'm saying all those examples Jay brought up are uniquely american because of the constitutional amendment in place. Those same judgements will have no even be taken into consideration from other jurisdictions. Of course precedents come from the common law system.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Precedents are dictated through Constitutional Amendments? Dude, you honestly have no fucking clue what you're talking about re: US law and Constitution.Cybargs wrote:
And all those precedents are through constitutional amendments, not common law. Those judgements in the US are not considered in other common law governments either.
It is different in the UK and Aus. We have laws restricting right to protest and public order offences which are legally valid due to a lack of bill of rights. It's entirely a huge debate here in aus. Singapore is a perfect example of a common law system where legislature has essentially nullified most common law rights.
That's pretty much a lot of tort cases where it's a 'matter of fact not law'.The alternative is the Continental system which throws out precedent and each judge makes his own judgement regarding the law. The problem there is you end up with wildly different judgements based on the judges prejudices.
that's judicial review and interpretation. it applies to statutory interpretation as well.Jay wrote:
Remember 8th grade history class where they made you memorize the amendments and told you how important they are? Then you become an adult and realize that you'd have to read 240 years of case law to actually find out what the amendments mean today... and that instead of a few sentences, they'd each be a thousand pages long.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Precedents are dictated through Constitutional Amendments? Dude, you honestly have no fucking clue what you're talking about re: US law and Constitution.Cybargs wrote:
And all those precedents are through constitutional amendments, not common law. Those judgements in the US are not considered in other common law governments either.
It is different in the UK and Aus. We have laws restricting right to protest and public order offences which are legally valid due to a lack of bill of rights. It's entirely a huge debate here in aus. Singapore is a perfect example of a common law system where legislature has essentially nullified most common law rights.
That's nice, we have 240 years of precedent to pull from and a rather large country. Our judges tend not to pull justification from what's done in foreign countries. Why? Well, we couldn't give a shit less what some judge in Australia said.Cybargs wrote:
Common law precedents can be taken everywhere. Jurisdictions always look to overseas common law sources first. The common law spans everything from contracts, torts, criminal law etc. An example I can give you is that the statute on murder has completely replaced the common law definition. In common law homicide, there is not distinction between murder and manslaughter, statutes have replaced it everywhere.Jay wrote:
Our legal system is based completely on theirs circa 1775. We've diverged since then, of course, but it comes from the same place and has the same basis in precedent and case law.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm not going to pretend to understand the British Legal system in any way more than a cursory understanding. But I do understand logic. If a Constitution is the only thing stopping the UK government from acting in a certain way, then why would they need to pass a law before they kill all the jews? Couldn't they just do it?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Actually they do. All. The. Time.Jay wrote:
That's nice, we have 240 years of precedent to pull from and a rather large country. Our judges tend not to pull justification from what's done in foreign countries. Why? Well, we couldn't give a shit less what some judge in Australia said.Cybargs wrote:
Common law precedents can be taken everywhere. Jurisdictions always look to overseas common law sources first. The common law spans everything from contracts, torts, criminal law etc. An example I can give you is that the statute on murder has completely replaced the common law definition. In common law homicide, there is not distinction between murder and manslaughter, statutes have replaced it everywhere.Jay wrote:
Our legal system is based completely on theirs circa 1775. We've diverged since then, of course, but it comes from the same place and has the same basis in precedent and case law.
Precedents would go like this US-> UK-> Canada-> Aus/NZ
Especially in regards to contract law (especially estoppel), cross jurisdictional precedents are always used because other jurisdictions would develop doctrines first or took a different approach due to the volume of case law.
Cybargs, our 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
And yet we have secret courts that issue warrants for bulk data collection. We have cops that can conduct no-knock raids and bust in your house without announcing themselves and then shoot your dog or you if you're stupid enough to fight back against home invaders.
We have cops conducting body cavity searches on the side of the highway because they "caught a whiff of marijuana".
We have cops that use dogs with 70%+ failure rates to justify searches.
We have police forces that detain people for months in holding cells while they await being charged with a crime, not just awaiting trial.
We have police forces that steal cash from individuals and charge people with crimes because asset forfeiture laws make it very easy to retain the money and very difficult for the person to get it back, even if innocent.
Stop and frisk, strawman purchases.... I can go on forever. Our 4th amendment has been interpreted into oblivion. It no longer exists. A constitution doesn't provide you with any measure of protection against case law interpretations.
And yet we have secret courts that issue warrants for bulk data collection. We have cops that can conduct no-knock raids and bust in your house without announcing themselves and then shoot your dog or you if you're stupid enough to fight back against home invaders.
We have cops conducting body cavity searches on the side of the highway because they "caught a whiff of marijuana".
We have cops that use dogs with 70%+ failure rates to justify searches.
We have police forces that detain people for months in holding cells while they await being charged with a crime, not just awaiting trial.
We have police forces that steal cash from individuals and charge people with crimes because asset forfeiture laws make it very easy to retain the money and very difficult for the person to get it back, even if innocent.
Stop and frisk, strawman purchases.... I can go on forever. Our 4th amendment has been interpreted into oblivion. It no longer exists. A constitution doesn't provide you with any measure of protection against case law interpretations.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3958
How did we get from drone strikes to case law?
Jay wrote:
Cybargs, our 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A warrant has been issued as you said. 'probable cause' is very very looseAnd yet we have secret courts that issue warrants for bulk data collection. We have cops that can conduct no-knock raids and bust in your house without announcing themselves and then shoot your dog or you if you're stupid enough to fight back against home invaders.
Smelling a prohibited substance is probably cause.We have cops conducting body cavity searches on the side of the highway because they "caught a whiff of marijuana".
A good defence lawyer would get the evidence thrown out. If cops can't justify probable cause, most likely the evidence it will be thrown out.We have cops that use dogs with 70%+ failure rates to justify searches.
We have police forces that detain people for months in holding cells while they await being charged with a crime, not just awaiting trial.
That's an onus of proof issue that legislation can deal with.We have police forces that steal cash from individuals and charge people with crimes because asset forfeiture laws make it very easy to retain the money and very difficult for the person to get it back, even if innocent.
Probable cause is wholly dependent on how a trial judge perceives it. A police officers experience usually suffices if he can 'reasonably' put 'two and two together'Stop and frisk, strawman purchases.... I can go on forever. Our 4th amendment has been interpreted into oblivion. It no longer exists. A constitution doesn't provide you with any measure of protection against case law interpretations.
Too lazy to do the quote train.Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
Cybargs, our 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."A warrant has been issued as you said. 'probable cause' is very very looseAnd yet we have secret courts that issue warrants for bulk data collection. We have cops that can conduct no-knock raids and bust in your house without announcing themselves and then shoot your dog or you if you're stupid enough to fight back against home invaders.Smelling a prohibited substance is probably cause.We have cops conducting body cavity searches on the side of the highway because they "caught a whiff of marijuana".A good defence lawyer would get the evidence thrown out. If cops can't justify probable cause, most likely the evidence it will be thrown out.We have cops that use dogs with 70%+ failure rates to justify searches.We have police forces that detain people for months in holding cells while they await being charged with a crime, not just awaiting trial.That's an onus of proof issue that legislation can deal with.We have police forces that steal cash from individuals and charge people with crimes because asset forfeiture laws make it very easy to retain the money and very difficult for the person to get it back, even if innocent.Probable cause is wholly dependent on how a trial judge perceives it. A police officers experience usually suffices if he can 'reasonably' put 'two and two together'Stop and frisk, strawman purchases.... I can go on forever. Our 4th amendment has been interpreted into oblivion. It no longer exists. A constitution doesn't provide you with any measure of protection against case law interpretations.
No knock raids are battled in court time and time again. There are cases winding their way to the Supreme Court as we speak.
The smell of pot is NOT probable cause. The supreme court just ruled on it recently. You would think a US legal scholar like yourself would know these things.
If constitutional amendments are supposed to limit the actions of government, how come the government (police) can still circumvent them (and then why is the onus on the defense to argue against the illegal use)?
US law does not allow for international law to be used to interpret the constitution. So no, the US legal system cannot use international decisions as an argument in a case to set a precedent. The only exception is if it is an international agreement or treaty the US is a signatory on.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. STOP please.
I never stated that and obviously, no fucking shit. Common law precedents can be taken from other jurisdictions IF necessary it only really occurs in areas such as contract law where statute rarely effects it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
US law does not allow for international law to be used to interpret the constitution.
Smelling pot depends where. If you're driving a car you're shit out of luck. But if you're in a house, then a warrant would be needed.
You do realize there's a motor vehicle exception to the 4th amendment right?
If there are exceptions for everything then the original item is rather useless innit?Cybargs wrote:
I never stated that and obviously, no fucking shit. Common law precedents can be taken from other jurisdictions IF necessary it only really occurs in areas such as contract law where statute rarely effects it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
US law does not allow for international law to be used to interpret the constitution.
Smelling pot depends where. If you're driving a car you're shit out of luck. But if you're in a house, then a warrant would be needed.
You do realize there's a motor vehicle exception to the 4th amendment right?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I agree. ban physics.Jay wrote:
If there are exceptions for everything then the original item is rather useless innit?Cybargs wrote:
I never stated that and obviously, no fucking shit. Common law precedents can be taken from other jurisdictions IF necessary it only really occurs in areas such as contract law where statute rarely effects it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
US law does not allow for international law to be used to interpret the constitution.
Smelling pot depends where. If you're driving a car you're shit out of luck. But if you're in a house, then a warrant would be needed.
You do realize there's a motor vehicle exception to the 4th amendment right?
and grammaruziq wrote:
I agree. ban physics.Jay wrote:
If there are exceptions for everything then the original item is rather useless innit?Cybargs wrote:
I never stated that and obviously, no fucking shit. Common law precedents can be taken from other jurisdictions IF necessary it only really occurs in areas such as contract law where statute rarely effects it.
Smelling pot depends where. If you're driving a car you're shit out of luck. But if you're in a house, then a warrant would be needed.
You do realize there's a motor vehicle exception to the 4th amendment right?
Don't need one, we have a queen, thanks.Cybargs wrote:
get a written constitution first.Dilbert_X wrote:
Some British law would be a start.
Fuck Israel
so does the rest of the commonwealth realm?Dilbert_X wrote:
Don't need one, we have a queen, thanks.Cybargs wrote:
get a written constitution first.Dilbert_X wrote:
Some British law would be a start.
Well they don't need any government at all.
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3958
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politics/ … index.htmlIt's been a quarter of a century since Ronald Reagan rode off into the California sunset, but the Republican Party has never stopped hankering for his heir.
The next generation of GOP White House candidates will battle for that long-vacant role Wednesday night, as they gather alongside Reagan's restored Air Force One at his presidential library for a pair of CNN presidential debates.
It's a rite of passage for Republican White House aspirants to invoke Reagan. Conservatives see his presidency as a golden age during which their movement slayed communism, restored America as a "shining city on a hill" and delivered 44 and then 49 states in successive presidential election routs. Many conservatives believe the two Bush presidencies that followed Reagan, as well as the subsequent GOP nominees, failed because they were not sufficiently faithful to the 40th president's ideoogical road map.
That reminds me of how the Byzantine Empire declared every new emperor including their last 'The new Constantine'.
It does annoy me when people invoke Reagan. It's funny that in 25 years they managed to elevate the man to Sainthood and in the same timeframe capitalism failed to deliver and the Soviets were proved right about a lot of things.
Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2015-09-15 14:28:57)
those types of pieces always come up around election season. It's amazing that the narrative of Reagan's legacy is that of forcing the "Evil Empire" to collapse. The only way you could put any onus on Reagan's administration is possibly causing them to spend like hell on defense - which is something the US did a lot of in the 80s. But the USSR collapsed on itself, not from the overbearing pressure of capitalism.
When I think of Reagan I think of failed concepts like trickle-down economics and the "Just Say No!" campaign. Both utter failures.
When I think of Reagan I think of failed concepts like trickle-down economics and the "Just Say No!" campaign. Both utter failures.
It sickens me every time I hear people speak of the greatest Republican president as him and not Lincoln. I know the Republican party was vastly different when each was in office, but still, it'd be easier to wiggle the facts and take claim of Lincoln than trying to pretend Reagan was a massive success story.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3958
I hate how everyone credits the U.S. and Reagan for the Afghan jihadists defeating the Soviet Union. All we did was give them weapons through Pakistani intermediaries. They were getting weapons from a lot of groups. Reagan didn't masterfully scheme a way to crush the soviets in Afghanistan.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
those types of pieces always come up around election season. It's amazing that the narrative of Reagan's legacy is that of forcing the "Evil Empire" to collapse. The only way you could put any onus on Reagan's administration is possibly causing them to spend like hell on defense - which is something the US did a lot of in the 80s. But the USSR collapsed on itself, not from the overbearing pressure of capitalism.
Only the US credits the US.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I hate how everyone credits the U.S. and Reagan for the Afghan jihadists defeating the Soviet Union. All we did was give them weapons through Pakistani intermediaries. They were getting weapons from a lot of groups. Reagan didn't masterfully scheme a way to crush the soviets in Afghanistan.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
those types of pieces always come up around election season. It's amazing that the narrative of Reagan's legacy is that of forcing the "Evil Empire" to collapse. The only way you could put any onus on Reagan's administration is possibly causing them to spend like hell on defense - which is something the US did a lot of in the 80s. But the USSR collapsed on itself, not from the overbearing pressure of capitalism.