• ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why are all basic civil rights not enshrined in laws, but instead resting on brittle law precedents in the US?

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Because it’s all imaginary and I can’t believe people seek comfort in a piece of paper and the concept of rule of law.

      A strongman, such as potentially trump but it could be any authoritarian in any country - will just wipe his ass with the constitution and do whatever the fuck he wants. It’s not like the law is going to stop him. He’s a convicted felon and he’s still going to be president despite that. And the J6 case (the only one with any real merit, IMO) that they had four years to prosecute is now dropped.

      Laws don’t matter. Laws don’t protect you. Laws exist to protect the in group and punish the out group.

    • Kecessa
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s the way English Common Law works contrary to French Civil Law

      • Voroxpete
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s not really an answer to their question. Canada (with the exception of Quebec), also operates on the English Common Law model, but we’ve passed specific laws that intentionally codify things like abortion and minority rights. Just recently we added “gender identity and gender expression” as specific categories on which it is illegal to discriminate.

        So, unlike the US where the right to gay marriage is the result of a court case, in Canada gay marriage started out that way, but was then codified in law with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. And speaking of English Common Law, the same is true in England, where gay marriage was legally enshrined in 2014.

        So it’s perfectly valid to ask why the US government has consistently failed to do this.

        • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          Off topic but how does Canada square away their English system with the one province under the French system? They’re nearly opposite systems.

          • Kecessa
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            Criminal law in Quebec is still based on the federal common law, it’s just matters of provincial jurisdiction that are under civil law.

          • Voroxpete
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Same way the US squares away their federal system. Some areas of law are federal, some are provincial. Quebec’s use of Napoleonic Law only applies to those areas covered by the Quebec Courts. Federal matters are handled in Federal Courts, so they’re not subject to Quebecois legal principles.

        • Kecessa
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Maybe Canada was more proactive than the USA but it’s still a result of the type of legal system they use, that wouldn’t happen with Civil law.

          There’s still plenty of things in Canada that are left to precedence, we don’t pass laws every time something comes up.