Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 16 days agoJustice Department won't prosecute Garland for contempt, says refusal to provide audio wasn't crimeapnews.comexternal-linkmessage-square56fedilinkarrow-up1225arrow-down15
arrow-up1220arrow-down1external-linkJustice Department won't prosecute Garland for contempt, says refusal to provide audio wasn't crimeapnews.comRapidcreek@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 16 days agomessage-square56fedilink
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down10·15 days agoI dont think the constitution mentions anything about common law
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·15 days agoIt doesn’t say anything about 18th century human rights philosophers either but it’s full of that too.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down7·15 days agoWhat, your whole point is that its in the constitution right?
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·15 days agoYes. It is. It’s assumed because that’s how the legal theories at the time it was written went.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·15 days agoAlright show me where in the constitution it is
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·15 days agoIt’s clear that you think that it was written in a vacuum without any historical context. That’s not how history works. It’s unclear why you are stuck on this particular hill.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·15 days ago your whole point is that its in the constitution right? Yes. It is.
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·15 days agoThis is a you thing. If you want to learn more, read the wiki article.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·15 days agoOh ive learned plenty. That the constitution has nothing in it to support common law.
I dont think the constitution mentions anything about common law
It doesn’t say anything about 18th century human rights philosophers either but it’s full of that too.
What, your whole point is that its in the constitution right?
Yes. It is. It’s assumed because that’s how the legal theories at the time it was written went.
Alright show me where in the constitution it is
It’s clear that you think that it was written in a vacuum without any historical context. That’s not how history works. It’s unclear why you are stuck on this particular hill.
This is a you thing. If you want to learn more, read the wiki article.
Oh ive learned plenty. That the constitution has nothing in it to support common law.