It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
One person must bring you to court, prove that you are guilty of one of the big 3 up there, otherwise go home. The court and the government have no legal right to harrass you, for any reason what so ever, considering they work for you and not the other way around
You realize the reason that common law never established any 'rights' is because allowing anybody to define your rights is a limitation of them?
Therein lay the problem. When a weak or poor person had cause to accuse a rich and powerful one... would a common law system be equally as accessible to both?
History says "no".
Justice Holmes cautioned that “the proper derivation of general principals in both common and constitutional law ... arise gradually, in the emergence of a consensus from a multitude of particularized prior decisions.” Judge Benjamin Cardozo noted the “common law does not work from pre-established truths of universal and inflexible validity to conclusions derived from them deductively,” but “its method is inductive, and it draws its generalizations from particulars.”
The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects. In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is totally intolerable. For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences).
I do agree with the theory of common law. The problem is that, in practice, it tends to fall apart.