> Of the cuff, the common vs civil law issue seems more of a formal difference, rather than a difference in outcome Nope. Its fundamental. Take what happened d

> Of the cuff, the common vs civil law issue seems more of a formal difference, rather than a difference in outcome Nope. Its fundamental. Take what happened during the BLM protests: A NY court suspended habeas corpus, the basis of all rights under common law. At that point, the authorities, including the police, could do whatever they wanted to anyone they wanted. It was reinstituted only after a higher NY court overruled it. If the higher court decided that the emergency warranted the suspension, ALL rights in NY would have been gone for the duration. Same goes for the US in general. If in the future, there is a major emergency that can 'justify' the suspension of habeas corpus and the supreme court lets it stay, all rights will be gone for whatever duration decided. In common law, the judges play the role of the sovereign monarch who owns all rights and gives them out as he sees fit. So it can 'reinterpret' everything at any given time and everyone is at the mercy of it. Now take civil law: No such thing can happen. What rights the citizens, residents and even refugees have are written in concrete in the law, including what rights can be kept and what rights are suspended even in emergencies including global catastrophes, and they can never be taken back by anybody. The only one who can give or take back laws is the society itself, ie the people, they do that through democratic voting and proportional representation, and nothing and nobody can overrule them. Sovereignty belongs to the people. > And what republic are the french on now? Fifth, sixth? The majority of the French republics were destroyed by external sources that were trying to eradicate the remnants of the French revolution. Mostly backed by (then) 'the leader of the free world', Britain. We can also include World War II in this, since Britain was trying to use Germany as an attack dog against the Soviets and therefore propping up in any way they could, especially diplomatically. (including preventing an Europe-wide attempt of an anti-Nazi alliance that could totally prevent Ww2). Outside those cases, the people democratically changing their constitution and calling it a new 'republic' does not really make it a new republic. Its still a republic, with a changed constition. The power still resides in the people and they decide how the 'new' republic will be. There is nothing outside the revolutionary principles there. Though, one can easily say that the latest republic was also prompted by an external intervention - namely the CIA coup attempt to depose de Gaul to prevent the French from giving independence to Algeria. http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/20/jfk-assassination-plot-mirrored-in-1961-france-part-1/ http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/20/jfk-assassination-plot-mirr... This is a very hairy affair, by the way - CIA organizing a coup in France using the military in lieu of JFK's policies and opposition, Parisians mobilizing and setting up barricades across Paris to protect the president, JFK being powerless to stop the CIA and leaking info and updates to the French via diplomatic channels to help against the coup...