Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 4 个月前Justice Department won't prosecute Garland for contempt, says refusal to provide audio wasn't crimeapnews.comexternal-linkmessage-square57fedilinkarrow-up1225arrow-down16
arrow-up1219arrow-down1external-linkJustice Department won't prosecute Garland for contempt, says refusal to provide audio wasn't crimeapnews.comRapidcreek@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 4 个月前message-square57fedilink
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down10·4 个月前I dont think the constitution mentions anything about common law
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·4 个月前It doesn’t say anything about 18th century human rights philosophers either but it’s full of that too.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down7·4 个月前What, your whole point is that its in the constitution right?
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·4 个月前Yes. It is. It’s assumed because that’s how the legal theories at the time it was written went.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·4 个月前Alright show me where in the constitution it is
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·4 个月前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.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·4 个月前 your whole point is that its in the constitution right? Yes. It is.
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·4 个月前This is a you thing. If you want to learn more, read the wiki article.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·4 个月前Oh 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.