• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do you prefer common law over civil law?

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I'd have to say I'd prefer civil law (although Xeer is the best) because the Federalists were Anglophile and pro-common law while the Articles of Confederation was more like a civil law... that is, the Articles of Confederation was not open to interpretation by an unelected judicial power and it actually placed hard limitations on the govt where the Federalists simply mandated how the govt was set up (like the electoral college [2], Congress[2], the executive, the judiciary, and the Amendment process[1]) and any legislation or order could be upheld if the Supreme Court decided it was Constitutional.

[1] The Amendment process can isn't definite, because the federal govt declares whether an Amendment is ratified while at the same time, the Constitution says 3/4 of the States are required to amend... which makes the legality of the evil 14th questionable (I say it's not legal because it was ratified through force and fraud and it was added to a law that was only because so because of force and fraud[see my signature]), and it can't be conclusively proven as to whether there was a lost 13th Amendment. That said, a major problem with federalism is that it tries to be a mishmash of confederalism and monarchism, but it tends to lean toward monarchy because of the centralization of power in the executive which is independent and unchecked. The Supreme Court is unchecked because the President and Congress select the justices. Congress is the most checked, but they're not checked enough because they act as the body of the union and because one chamber chooses who is on the Supreme Court... due to that, all power should come from the legislature, rather than having 3 independent branches of govt.

[2] The 12th Amendment and electoral college rules aren't definitely enforced by the Constitution either because of the judicial power.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Not even as coherent as your usual rants. Needs serious editing for clarity.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Not even as coherent as your usual rants. Needs serious editing for clarity
You're right:)... I just looked at it and it looked like someone without frontal lobes typed it.

Basically, I was asking whether people preferred Common law over Civil Law and then I somehow got into saying that Common Law (as of which the Federalist Constitution is clearly based on) allows unlimited state power because it is not codified and gets interpreted by totally unaccountable judges. Civil law has the same problem because the legislature can do anything it wants. So decentralization is necessary.
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,866
14,999
136
Congress is the most checked, but they're not checked enough because they act as the body of the union and because one chamber chooses who is on the Supreme Court... due to that, all power should come from the legislature, rather than having 3 independent branches of govt.
Under the Constitution, Congress is not "the most checked" branch. Currently Congress is mostly checked by the craven nature of those we elect. Congress has far more power under the Constitution than it chooses to exercise. In the vacuum of congressional vapidness Presidents have stepped in to wield the power Congress won't. The "Imperial Presidency" was born of Congressional sloth.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Congress isn't centralized into one indepedent person and they can only pass laws which can be vetoed by the other two branches, so it sure as hell is less powerful than the Executive power. An absolute majority of Congress has no power compared to the President, unless the President is like Andrew Johnson and doesn't care to use his power until it's too late... that is, Johnson, as commander in chief, should've just ordered the military to massacre the Radical Republicans in Congress rather than waiting until it was too late to fire Stanton's bitch ass.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,866
14,999
136
Congress isn't centralized into one indepedent person and they can only pass laws which can be vetoed by the other two branches, so it sure as hell is less powerful than the Executive power. An absolute majority of Congress has no power compared to the President, unless the President is like Andrew Johnson and doesn't care to use his power until it's too late... that is, Johnson, as commander in chief, should've just ordered the military to massacre the Radical Republicans in Congress rather than waiting until it was too late to fire Stanton's bitch ass.
Once again your understanding of the Constitution is flawed. The President ain't got no money unless Congress provides it. No money => no troops to command. Congress doesn't even have to act to stymie a President. They can just stay home, not pass a budget, and the President is screwed.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,391
31
91
Once again your understanding of the Constitution is flawed. The President ain't got no money unless Congress provides it. No money => no troops to command. Congress doesn't even have to act to stymie a President. They can just stay home, not pass a budget, and the President is screwed.
Power of impeachment as well.

Basically, I was asking whether people preferred Common law over Civil Law and then I somehow got into saying that Common Law (as of which the Federalist Constitution is clearly based on) allows unlimited state power because it is not codified and gets interpreted by totally unaccountable judges. Civil law has the same problem because the legislature can do anything it wants. So decentralization is necessary.
It's already decentralized. You're not under Iranian law in the US, are you?
The world has a range of legal systems to choose from. Or you can kill yourself and live under none! /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Once again your understanding of the Constitution is flawed. The President ain't got no money unless Congress provides it. No money => no troops to command. Congress doesn't even have to act to stymie a President. They can just stay home, not pass a budget, and the President is screwed. IronWing is offline Report Post
So you think the Red Republicans would have agreed to shut down the govt? The Executive power carries the spending out, so it could technically use differently than directed.

The President is commander in chief, so as long as there is money, the President could technically direct the military to do whatever he wants.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,866
14,999
136
So you think the Red Republicans would have agreed to shut down the govt? The Executive power carries the spending out, so it could technically use differently than directed.

The President is commander in chief, so as long as there is money, the President could technically direct the military to do whatever he wants.
No and no. The President does not have the authority to spend differently. The President doesn't even have authority to not spend the money appropriated to a purpose under a duly passed spending law. Only Congress may declare a war. That recent Presidents have chosen to wage war w/o the consent of Congress and Congress has not stopped them from doing so is due to the American people voting gutless wonders into Congress, not a flaw in the Constitution.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
not a flaw in the Constitution.
The Federalists intended for the Supreme Court to decide whether the Executive power can wage war without Congressional declaration of war... and so far, the Supreme Court has been okay with the President waging wars without Congressional approval. Also, the Federalists (that is, the people who wrote the current Constitution) favored making the executive power like a monarch which means that they meant for the President to wage war without Congressional approval.

Madison knew damn well that the Executive power couldn't be checked and balanced by Congress (and Hamilton knew damn well that the Supreme Court was not going to protect liberty), but they set minimal and illegal ratification requirements which made the lies they told all the more effective at getting what they wanted.
The President does not have the authority to spend differently.
Due to the independence and unaccountability granted to him by the Federalists, he can, unfortunately.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,866
14,999
136
Due to the independence and unaccountability granted to him by the Federalists, he can, unfortunately.
No, the President cannot. The Supreme Court slapped Reagan's nose on this very issue. The executive branch must spend in accordance with appropriations laws.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
The executive branch must spend in accordance with appropriations laws.
Congress makes the laws so that the President can abuse them, although I don't know if Congress do it by intent or by accident. An example would be the Libyan war.
The Supreme Court slapped Reagan's nose on this very issue.
That's true, but the Supreme Court could reverse that decision.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
People are arguing the theoretical. The reality is that it isn't Congress or President who defines what can be done and funded. It is the dominant political party. That tells Congress and the President what can happen. Party whips aren't something for kinky orgies.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
6
81
As idiotic as A420's posts normally are he has a point about how our system probably allows the judiciary too much of a say in the lawmaking process.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Once again your understanding of the Constitution is flawed. The President ain't got no money unless Congress provides it. No money => no troops to command. Congress doesn't even have to act to stymie a President. They can just stay home, not pass a budget, and the President is screwed.
Do not forget, that if a president vetos a law, they can always override him with a vote requireing 66%+ to pass it.

And Also do not forget there has been times the Supreme court has said Nay to things and the president and congress basically said "F it, we will do it anyways" and pass something similar to what they tried in the supreme court.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
As idiotic as A420's posts normally are he has a point about how our system probably allows the judiciary too much of a say in the lawmaking process.
thank you:). It was designed that way because the Federalist Constitution says that the supreme court determines what it means.
Do not forget, that if a president vetos a law, they can always override him with a vote requireing 66%+ to pass it.

And Also do not forget there has been times the Supreme court has said Nay to things and the president and congress basically said "F it, we will do it anyways" and pass something similar to what they tried in the supreme court.
That confirms my point that Congress is the least powerful and that there is no such thing as checks and balances. The purse is nowhere near as powerful as the sword and a purse can be stopped but a sword can't be so the purse is the least powerful... Hamilton knew that, but he lied about it because he wanted more state power.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
thank you:). It was designed that way because the Federalist Constitution says that the supreme court determines what it means.
That confirms my point that Congress is the least powerful and that there is no such thing as checks and balances. The purse is nowhere near as powerful as the sword and a purse can be stopped but a sword can't be so the purse is the least powerful... Hamilton knew that, but he lied about it because he wanted more state power.
How does that make congress the least powerful?

They can override the executive branch leader (the president) by a 2/3s vote. Yet the president cannot override them or force into voting a certain way in ratifying laws. Only suggestions. He only has executive commander in cheif power for 90 days. Once those days are up, congress must give their approval, otherwise they will take over command and withdraw the troops. Then if the president refuses they will go for an impeachment.

basically the Legislative branch can act as all 3 branches under schemes and situations, however the other 2 branches cannot.

This is also why I find it funny when a lot of issues are considered the president's fault, when in reality, other than being an ambassador to foreign policies, his only real control is trying to convince congress and judicial members to go along with plans his party wants, and not himself exactly.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
Civil Code hands down, makes it easier for non legal experts to understand the rules that govern civil life.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY