undefined | Better HN

0 pointsleereeves4y ago0 comments

Good example. Opposing "law as a living construct" doesn't mean the law shouldn't be amended or "we should drop the other amendments", it means the courts should follow the law as written (including amendments) and not redefine it as they choose.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

namdnay4y ago· 2 in thread

So a civil law system, rather than common law? Yeah they have that in France, it comes with its own issues (very slow to adapt - women only got the vote in the 60s, and the death penalty was still there until the 80s if I remember correctly)

leereevesOP4y ago

Not just in France. Most of Europe and the Americas use a civil law system, except for former British colonies.[1] This includes many nations that gave women the right to vote before the US did. And as for the death penalty, well, the US still has that.[2] So your examples haven't convinced me that civil law is slow to adapt.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File:Map_of_...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dustin_Higgs

OrvalWintermute4y ago

Not civil law vs common law, or, common law vs continental law [1]

In using the Constitution as a living document which can be interpreted by an activist judge, rather than the constitution as written [2], as passed by the states/amendment (originalism), interpreted by precedents from the collection of rulings, and caselaw.

[1] https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-la...

[2] https://www.swindlelaw.com/2017/10/originalism-living-consti...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse