The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.
Very helpful. But can you also clear the difference as to who is responsible in giving verdict or decision and the rules over it? That's my only grey area.
Yes, you are correct, this is true in most common law countries. Of course, in the United States, the jury trial plays a much larger role. The United States Constitution Article 3, as well as the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, all reference the importance of the jury trials. Most state constitutions also guarantee the right to a jury trial for most civil disputes.
Could you please elaborate further on the differences between the United Civil Code and the U.S. Constitution?. I believe this will be crucial knowledge for the future of our country and world peace. Thank you.
Legislation does not represent the will of the people. There are no referendum that exist now for the people to give consent. Government is now a corporate entity and therefore rule through contracts. Further, bills acts and statutes are created without consent of the people or lawfully established check and balances to validate said acts against constitution, bill of rights to determine conflict.
Natural Law indeed. Do no harm. In a Free State only crime is to cause harm or violate an agreement. Common Law is based on Natural Law, the Judge is dependent on the Jury. Actio non dator non damnificato., I.E. No harm no foul. Prohibitions are a violation of Law, save the prohibition of real injury. Freedom means no Masters, Rulers, or Kings, We elect Servants not Masters. Common law relies on precedent indeed, but the decision is made by the Jury, not the Judge. We forget our freedom, we can not defend what we do not know. The Rights in the Constitution can not be limited or amended, they stand forever as natural God given Rights. Not legal advice. -Author Unknown. . . #EffectChangeandLiveFree -Copy and Paste if you Agree-
Why would it? If corruption happens in the common law system and it is deemed lawful, other courts should then also judge it the same way. The civil law would be more flexible to rule differently from case law, but if the corruption is written in to law, then yeah it would obviously give way for corruption. In my country (civil law) affirmative action is not allowed because it is discriminatory by definition, as it assign different values to gender, religion or ethnicity. It would require that the government changed the law for it to be allowed.
In a common law trial there is a presumption of innocence. The state must prove guilt. In civil law there is a presumption of guilt. The accused have to prove their innoncence. Ie. Common law, the people hold the piwer. Civil law. The state holds the power. Thats why we voted for Brexit.
Natural Law indeed. Do no harm. In a Free State only crime is to cause harm or violate an agreement. Common Law is based on Natural Law, the Judge is dependent on the Jury. Actio non dator non damnificato., I.E. No harm no foul. Prohibitions are a violation of Law, save the prohibition of real injury. Freedom means no Masters, Rulers, or Kings, We elect Servants not Masters. Common law relies on precedent indeed, the decision is made by the Jury, not the Judge, for good reason. We forget our freedom, we can not defend what we do not know. The Rights in the Constitution can not be limited or amended, they stand forever as natural God given Rights. The Constitution can be amended, they may add rights, but take non away. That is why the Alcohol prohibition was unlawful and unconstitutional ab initio, prohibitions on substances or properties, like guns, are never lawful. Cannons fall under the right to bear arms because merchant ships have Equal Right to defend themselves from pirates. I can't vote for someone to kick in your door and steal your medicine or property, because I haven't the power to grant to my representative public servants. You forgot, Common Law Judges are voted in by the people, not appointed by legal "scholars". Not legal advice. -Author Unknown. . . #EffectChangeandLiveFree -Copy and Paste if you Agree-
By your summary, you state; you cannot take away the right to bare arms. People have the right to protect themselves. If governments cannot take away rights, how do we mitigate those who use weapons to cause harm?
The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.
Many thanks for your guidance, help, and efforts.
Glad it helped
Thank you! This was very helpful.
Glad it was helpful!
Very helpful. But can you also clear the difference as to who is responsible in giving verdict or decision and the rules over it? That's my only grey area.
Thank you so much!
In most civil cases in common law countries a judge is the finder of fact. Juries are very rare in anything but criminal cases.
Yes, you are correct, this is true in most common law countries. Of course, in the United States, the jury trial plays a much larger role. The United States Constitution Article 3, as well as the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, all reference the importance of the jury trials. Most state constitutions also guarantee the right to a jury trial for most civil disputes.
Thanks!
semangat merangkumnya teman-teman
Every day people don't have to learn this mess but is being charged and tried under it
thanks man👌
Happy to help!
Could you please elaborate further on the differences between the United Civil Code and the U.S. Constitution?. I believe this will be crucial knowledge for the future of our country and world peace. Thank you.
Legislation does not represent the will of the people. There are no referendum that exist now for the people to give consent. Government is now a corporate entity and therefore rule through contracts.
Further, bills acts and statutes are created without consent of the people or lawfully established check and balances to validate said acts against constitution, bill of rights to determine conflict.
does civil and common law compare cases to law? and how?
common Law - NO Victim/ No Crime
the stay with the creator Law thanks
Natural Law indeed. Do no harm. In a Free State only crime is to cause harm or violate an agreement. Common Law is based on Natural Law, the Judge is dependent on the Jury. Actio non dator non damnificato., I.E. No harm no foul. Prohibitions are a violation of Law, save the prohibition of real injury. Freedom means no Masters, Rulers, or Kings, We elect Servants not Masters. Common law relies on precedent indeed, but the decision is made by the Jury, not the Judge. We forget our freedom, we can not defend what we do not know. The Rights in the Constitution can not be limited or amended, they stand forever as natural God given Rights. Not legal advice.
-Author Unknown. . .
#EffectChangeandLiveFree
-Copy and Paste if you Agree-
Would it be therefore legitimate to say that civil law practices actually do give way for corruption to exist?
Why would it? If corruption happens in the common law system and it is deemed lawful, other courts should then also judge it the same way. The civil law would be more flexible to rule differently from case law, but if the corruption is written in to law, then yeah it would obviously give way for corruption. In my country (civil law) affirmative action is not allowed because it is discriminatory by definition, as it assign different values to gender, religion or ethnicity. It would require that the government changed the law for it to be allowed.
Thank you. I am curious as to what is your country? If I may ask.
@@ggmtalentsdon't want to specify but I am from a Scandinavian country :) they do have very similar systems overall
@@Rotwold I am aware I lived in Germany for over a decade so yes, I can relate. Best years ever!!!
In a common law trial there is a presumption of innocence. The state must prove guilt.
In civil law there is a presumption of guilt. The accused have to prove their innoncence.
Ie. Common law, the people hold the piwer.
Civil law. The state holds the power.
Thats why we voted for Brexit.
A
Natural Law indeed. Do no harm. In a Free State only crime is to cause harm or violate an agreement. Common Law is based on Natural Law, the Judge is dependent on the Jury. Actio non dator non damnificato., I.E. No harm no foul. Prohibitions are a violation of Law, save the prohibition of real injury. Freedom means no Masters, Rulers, or Kings, We elect Servants not Masters. Common law relies on precedent indeed, the decision is made by the Jury, not the Judge, for good reason. We forget our freedom, we can not defend what we do not know. The Rights in the Constitution can not be limited or amended, they stand forever as natural God given Rights. The Constitution can be amended, they may add rights, but take non away. That is why the Alcohol prohibition was unlawful and unconstitutional ab initio, prohibitions on substances or properties, like guns, are never lawful. Cannons fall under the right to bear arms because merchant ships have Equal Right to defend themselves from pirates. I can't vote for someone to kick in your door and steal your medicine or property, because I haven't the power to grant to my representative public servants. You forgot, Common Law Judges are voted in by the people, not appointed by legal "scholars". Not legal advice.
-Author Unknown. . .
#EffectChangeandLiveFree
-Copy and Paste if you Agree-
By your summary, you state; you cannot take away the right to bare arms. People have the right to protect themselves.
If governments cannot take away rights, how do we mitigate those who use weapons to cause harm?
Civil law sounds horrible
Bias