At least the foundation of the Westminster system is recognizing Parliament's supremacy and allowing the legislature to overrule the judiciary whenever they wish, to the point that Canada's constitution even has a clause saying that provincial and federal assemblies can straight up ignore almost all of it if. Sorry Americans, but you only have yourself to blame for letting 9 unelected judges decide everything.
The American system took the UK’s already terrible parliamentary system and made it worse
It's not even in the US constitution. They just started doing it and everyone went along with it. They have no enforcement power and afaik no legal authority to do what they're doing.
Marbury v. Madison and it's consequences...
Unfortunately the most famous instance in which the federal gov ignored the SCOTUS (when Jackson supposedly said: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.") was after the court made one of its rare good but unpopular decisions, by ruling that Georgia could not unilaterally seize Cherokee land, contributing to the American mythos of the court as a protector of rights and liberty against state tyranny.
I'm aware. Laws aren't real, they're just excuses that people with guns use to do whatever they want.
damn I cant believe we dont have any napoleon emotes. Failsite strikes again :napoleon-disgruntled:
can someone explain this to a hypothetical someone who does not know the differences between english and french law?
I'll take another layperson crack at it. Common law is focused on precedent. There is no precedent for how a case should be decided until somebody goes and fucks it up for everybody. Then there is precedent. A whole body of jurisprudence builds up which sets the bounds on what legislation can be enacted and which enforcement mechanisms are acceptable.
Under Civil law systems, precedent doesn't carry the same weight. Past jurisprudence does not restrain what the legislature can or cannot pass into law. The burden falls on the legislature to further clarify the legal code when there are edge cases, and judges (are supposed to) more-or-less interpret the law as written.
Common Law is practiced mainly in the anglo countries, while the vast majority of the world (Latin America, Mainland Europe, Asia) practices Civil law.
This in theory is supposed to mean that common law is very consistent, but in reality often leaves the legal system very arcane.
IANAL nor american so take it with a grain of salt
in common law systems the judges are informed by the understanding of the law at the time it was passed and previous decisions/precedent while in napoleonic code systems judges just make decisions based on the legal code
I think the position of his right arm makes the silhouette a lot dumpier
