3 ms·

I agree that the structure of American democracy allows for the dysfunctional equilibrium that the US Congress presently finds themselves in, and I agree that s

I agree that the structure of American democracy allows for the dysfunctional equilibrium that the US Congress presently finds themselves in, and I agree that some of that structure is in contrast to other contemporary classically liberal democracies. But even a more functional and productive legislature does not have the same bandwidth to look at individual ambiguities, nor the mandate to do so, thats found in the federal appellate courts. Moreover, the reliance on case law does not remove the legislature's ability to adjust the statute when they believe that case law has got things wrong. Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I see civil-law jurisdictions as having strictly fewer resources to clarify ambiguities in the law when compared to common-law jurisdictions. Although some civil-law jurisdictions happen to also have more productive and responsive legislative and regulatory bodies, as far as I can tell, that's unrelated to their use of civil-law.

bitwize 8y ago
All I'm saying is that the USA relies too heavily on case law, tradition, and precedent, allowing corrupt practice to become entrenched and resistant to extirpation far too easily -- not that these things should be eliminated.
hannasanarion 8y ago
It is not unrelated, because it means that the lawmakers have to be more careful and take their jobs as legislators and writers of policy seriously, instead of merely yelling for a living. In civil law jurisdictions, the law is what the legislator says it is, no more, no less. What you write is what the law is, period. Judges can take each others advice and try to apply it consistently, but they can't go beyond or against what's written. In common law jurisdictions, the law is ancient and practically unknowable. Your laws can be struck down for being out of whack with some older precedent, or it can be re-interpreted to be something better or worse than it is. It is common in common law jurisdictions for legislators to poop out something vague and inconsistent and then rely on the courts and the regulators to turn it into actual policy.

bitwize 8y ago

All I'm saying is that the USA relies too heavily on case law, tradition, and precedent, allowing corrupt practice to become entrenched and resistant to extirpation far too easily -- not that these things should be eliminated.

hannasanarion 8y ago

It is not unrelated, because it means that the lawmakers have to be more careful and take their jobs as legislators and writers of policy seriously, instead of merely yelling for a living. In civil law jurisdictions, the law is what the legislator says it is, no more, no less. What you write is what the law is, period. Judges can take each others advice and try to apply it consistently, but they can't go beyond or against what's written. In common law jurisdictions, the law is ancient and practically unknowable. Your laws can be struck down for being out of whack with some older precedent, or it can be re-interpreted to be something better or worse than it is. It is common in common law jurisdictions for legislators to poop out something vague and inconsistent and then rely on the courts and the regulators to turn it into actual policy.