quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what a load of crap. common law is just the law of precedent; and precedent comes from judicial interpretation of statutes. statutes are not "basically gentleman's agreements".

I meant more the root of precedent is based on a murky foundation compared to the US. All precedent is rooted in the Constitution.

The constitution is just another set of laws though. you could say that it was nothing more than a “gentlemen’s agreement” because it wasn’t based on anything, either. just because our constitution (and yours) sets out a bunch of stipulations regarding federal and state authorities, doesn't really mean that common law is rooted in the constitution (imo). statute is statute, regardless of the historical basis for/of law.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Come on man hold up a sec, look at who you're talking to. It's like asking Stu for shampoo and conditioner advice.

Hey come on, you could say the same for Nou, right?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN The constitution is just another set of laws though. you could say that it was nothing more than a “gentlemen’s agreement” because it wasn’t based on anything, either. just because our constitution (and yours) sets out a bunch of stipulations regarding federal and state authorities, doesn't really mean that common law is rooted in the constitution (imo). statute is statute, regardless of the historical basis for/of law.

Yes, but statutes in the UK system and many other former British colonies do not build theirs off a central themed document that can be fallen back on as the ultimate law of the land.

Yes, all laws are gentleman's agreements, but you can make a rational argument that one system can be designed to be more robust and trustworthy and integral than another. The US has a very clear system for determining precedent which is helpful in crafting new legislation. Despite a lot of problems the US legal system actually runs very smoothly because of this.

How did you know her dress size?

___________________
Freak Out Tóng Zhì

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Yes, but statutes in the UK system and many other former British colonies do not build theirs off a central themed document that can be fallen back on as the ultimate law of the land.

I regard that as a good thing as it doesn't eternally bind us to ridiculous ideological concepts from 250 years ago, like the notion that society is safer when everyone is allowed to brandish lethal weaponry. This "central themed document" is little different to the Bible in that it's an ancient tome written when society was very different that lays down a certain set of guidelines which need to be subjectively interpreted and applied to modern situations. And then it's routinely violated by your own government anyway.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I regard that as a good thing as it doesn't eternally bind us to ridiculous ideological concepts from 250 years ago

yep, this has always been my opinion too. the worship felt by our decadent cousins for their constitution gets up my nose. there were constitutional challenges to random breath tests for motorists ffs (unreasonable search and seizure). and look at the citizens united ruling lol. i'll take imperfect laws in a state of flux than heavy-handed decisions binding everyone for the rest of time, thanks.

australia's constitution is pretty bare-bones, and pretty much just structures the government(s). very dry, boring stuff. gets the job done, but i don't jerk off over it.

___________________

Excuse me, but The Constitution was written by God himself before being passed down to our Illustrious Forefathers. I won't sit here and read this blasphemy

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

Robin Williams certainly displayed the right to bear arms.

___________________
Freak Out Tóng Zhì

Defending the right to use children in a sexual manner, whether in print or otherwise, is quite creepy.

quote:

Originally posted by Srussell Defending the right to use children in a sexual manner, whether in print or otherwise, is quite creepy.

Only if you make an assumption that I also find it morally right as well, which I don't.

You can defend horrible things in a broader context and still not personally find them right.

Then again Russell you strike me as one of those people that cant grasp subtlety like that and probably think defense attorneys are all pro murder and pro rape.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yep, this has always been my opinion too. the worship felt by our decadent cousins for their constitution gets up my nose. there were constitutional challenges to random breath tests for motorists ffs (unreasonable search and seizure). and look at the citizens united ruling lol. i'll take imperfect laws in a state of flux than heavy-handed decisions binding everyone for the rest of time, thanks. australia's constitution is pretty bare-bones, and pretty much just structures the government(s). very dry, boring stuff. gets the job done, but i don't jerk off over it.

That's fine though, your power ultimately rests in the "divine" authority of the Queen/King still. We chose a document, which seems far more suitable for a modern society since it gets rid of all the pointless pageantry of monarchism.