Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: Screenshot_2016-09-25-23-31-37.png (889KB, 1080x1920px) Image search:
[Google]
889KB, 1080x1920px
What is the basis of law in the United States? The reason I ask is because we have several laws that are philosophically contradictory, but were passed in the same era.
For example in 1971, Nixon declares the war on drugs. From my understanding the argument was that drugs are harmful to society, and therefor no one should be allowed to use or possess them.
Two years later a decision was reached on Roe v. Wade, and women were given the right to arbortion, with the argument that women should be allowed to do what they please with their own bodies.
So is the basis of American law the good of society, or and individual's rights? Or is there no specified basis for American law, and that it's totally discretionary based on who is in power at the time.
>>
File: turtle eats man.webm (913KB, 768x576px) Image search:
[Google]
913KB, 768x576px
>>1954331
>cucked.com
>>
>>1954337
Jesus Christ what the fuck
>>
>>1954373
Just some reptiles having some fun.
>>
>>1954331
You want the legal answer or the philosophical answer?
>>
>>1954427
Mainly the legal, but interested in both
>>
Lawfag here. The constitution gives legislative power to congress and judges. Judicial verdicts are legally binding. That's why Joe v Wade is a law. Laws don't have to be consistent in order to be law.
>>
>>1954689
So basically there isn't any principal to keep in mind when passing legislation or deciding precedant in cases?
>>
>>1954331
People are irrational af and do not act logically consistent. I guess one can find a casuistic basis of law in there somewhere.
>>
>>1954699
Every country is different but the US uses common law which means that a judge can interpret laws in a way that he sees fit and inferior courts have to follow it. That's why it's such a big deal that the supreme court will consists of mostly republicans now. Judges aren't supposed to be politically engaged but in practice they usually are.
Some judges and legislators in certain countries follow legal doctrine, which is constructed by legal scholars. Those laws usually make more sense and are more consistent.
>>
>>1954723
I mean I understand common law and the role of justices. What I'm asking, is when congress passes a law are they supposed to ask themselves
>how do we further the good of the majority
Or
>would passing this law infringe on individual rights?
Or is it neither, and they can do whatever the fuck they want
>>
>>1954746
They can pass any law they like basically. A court can perform a judicial review and if it deems the law unconstitutional it can make it it void. There are general principles for most branches of law. Principles for administrative law are shit like impartiality and having to state reasons etc. But often laws are made to benefit lobbyists, the modern version of paying off the army.
>>
>>
>>1954782
Agreed. Common law is beyond retarded.
>>
>>1954790
What is the difference between civil law and common law, and why is civil law so much better?
>>
>>1954941
It's too specific to explain in detail and in practice both are nearly the same.
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3