What is the difference between Common and Civil Law?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2024
- Consider Supporting HoH: / houseofhistory
"The power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law." - Jeremy Bentham
This quote is, to an extent, appropriate to both the common and the civil law system (known as continental law). However, there are fundamental differences between common and civil law. In their origins, their development and their contemporary applicability. So what are these differences and how did they originate?
Civil law sometimes is referred to as “code law”. This is because of the importance of codified statutes this legal system assigns to them. In common law, case law in the form of published judicial opinions is of primary importance. Thus in civil law, the codified statutes form the basis of law, whereas in common law precedent forms the basis. However, this is putting it too bluntly. In order to properly understand the nuances of and differences between these systems, the historical background of these systems ought to be outlined
Thank you for taking the time to check out House of History, I hope you will find the films informative, interesting and enjoyable!
If you have any feedback, questions or criticism feel free to leave a comment. Your opinion truly aids me in improving the content of the channel! If you have a question, feel free to leave a comment and I will either write a reply, answer your question in a Q&A video, or make an entire video about it!
Time Codes:
Sources:
This is an older video, from next week onward there will be more recently recorded videos again! Life has been busy and I did not want to not upload a video.
54
Thank you.
Another great video man! I enjoy these shorter videos and hope you'll make more. I think it'll allow you to spend more time on the longer videos, too. Rocking the glasses btw ;)
Thank you for watching the video and your comment! Once I am on my Christmas break I have a few plans in mind surrounding these 'shorter videos', supplemented with longer ones (the 10-15 minute ones).
I hope you are having a great holiday! I miss your uploads though! ;)
@@HoH That sounds great! I look forward to seeing it and I hope you enjoy your break too. I'll drop by to wish you a Merry Christmas.
I miss uploading too haha but hope my Robespierre documentary will make up for it.
Such a comprehensive clip ! This really helped ! Thanks!
that was very helpful. Thank you for making these videos!
Just a note on one of your statements. The United States is Common Law, with the exception of Louisiana. We use Roman Civil Law and are the only state in the union that does so.
That's odd but very true. The federal courts in Louisiana ("LA") are still operating under common law, but when it hears _diversity_ _jurisdiction_ case under state law, it becomes a hybrid of both. Their decisions decisions are based on LA statutory law, codes of state civil procedures, contractual law, tort claims and damages, but it's simpler than it seems. It's lot easier keeping up with changes in codification from legislatures and regulatory bodies than it is researching case law, and other changes to judge-made laws.
Is French still spoken there?
That's french centralism for you
@@arolemaprarath6615 No, because of preventing French in schools in the 20's ,only very small communities still speak it and it's shrinking over time, but there are some efforts to preserve it and revive it
A little bit helpeful? It was incredible helpful. Thank you so much!
See Blackstone's Commentaries this guy is lost! Common law is found only in the bible.
Thanks a lot... It was really helpful...
Great info thank you
Hi. I was searching for this topic because I study law and I have to make a video for my exam, and it was amazing! can you say me tips on where can I edit the video? also where you find all the information
This video was very helpful- thanks!
Yes, this video is brilliant and very well organaised it has got a lot of information related to culture and history.
thank you very much for information!!!
Difference between Common and Civil Law
Thanks for explanation. Very good.
Thank you. Please comment on Common Law and the lockdown where business don’t close - as I’ve seen in Instagram.
Thanks a lot! This helps...
Greatly helpful
Nice video and nice shape, king.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you!
Very helpful
Hi! Any books about (the history of) Common Law you can recommend?
Merci beaucoup.
successful, continue working greetings
Good
6. HOW DO THE THINKING OF EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN LAWYERS DIFFER?
Thinking of Civil and Common Law lawyers differ as two countries in Europe are Common Law.
wow!!!!!!!!! thank you
Louisiana is a mix of civil and common law, based on French and British concepts. It is tampered by Federal courts, where common law prevails entirely. California, on the other hand is not common law, per se.
I am here because of my modular class T.T
Is it civil or legal for a Christian church or library to run and or opera other than 24 Hours a day?
Hi. Please help me. I dont understand why england is a common law system. Part of the law is codified, one legislation is issued it becomes law. So it isnt just judges that make laws, parliment does also. So why isnt this civil law.
google hybrid systems
So when it says "Judges make law" judges don't actually write law. Their decisions and Interpretations of law become precedent. Future judges and other judges then look at that precedent when applying law. Parliament is where laws are written. Judges then interpret the laws on a case by case basis
“Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King’s peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same.” Chief Justice Cooke 1640
DPP v Nally 2006
Why is the US considered to be based on the common law although it’s constitution is codified unlike the UK, which does not have a codified constitution ?
The Republic of Ireland a common law jurisdiction has a written constitution
👍
well hello daddyy
4:50 -- Small correction: Only a fully-licensed lawyer can prepare legal documents **for persons other than themselves.** You can prepare filings for yourself until hell freezes over, but information on how to do so is often ridiculously obscure, and in any case, it's a terrible idea for any but the most simple and trivial legal proceedings (like traffic citations). Representing yourself is *such* a terrible idea that, in many instances, the judge will question you to make sure you understand what a terrible idea it really is, and that you want to proceed anyway.
Civil law: Built to consolidate Roman law to be something comprehensible
Common law: built to consolidate power
I think I already know which one I prefer.
Common Law uses prior cases
wrg, no such thing as presenx or importanx or culturex or arguex or convincex or not, say, can say any nmw and any s perfect
Why Did The Americans Use Common Law And Not Civil Law? It Would Be Distancing America From England And Much Less Independent On The English Culture..
I think its Because the US Constitution its too short and it leaves ambiguities and legal loopholes that the Supreme Court interprets freely. The Roman Civil Law was born out of Justitiano's need to compile various laws, principles, jurisprudence and case law predecents from Roman Courts and elevate them to constitutional status order under a long and detailed Constitution. Soon the United States will become Civil Law, we just have to wait for Congress to pass many laws, bills, codes and enough long Constitutional Amendments and the courts will prefer to apply the codes instead of prioritizing the precedents.
It is basically waiting that Laws of Congress like acts, bills and statutes become constitutional amendments that becomes part of the US Constitution. Imagine things like the US Civil Code being promoted as a Constitutional Amendment.
Remember that the philosophy behind the Roman Civil Law is that all norms must be written in somewhere, in statutes from Legislative.
Marbury V Madison established the process of judicial review which I think is a big reason why common law prevails here. Judges decide what laws are legal lol
Didn't understand a word of that lol
The statement you made about having to be a licensed lawyer to write documents in common law is totally and completely false. Number one the goverments of each State of the Union, here at the united States of America, do not issue "licenses" to practice law. The closest to that we have here is called a "bar card" which is issued to members of the association which is a private organization, called the bar association.
Second, I can only assume that you meant a licensed attorney. Because a Lawyer can simply be defined as "a person learned in the law".
Where as an "attorney" in the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place or stead of another.
Third I am not an attorney. Yet I drafted, filed ex parte, and won a case against the UNITED STATES et al with a "petition In the nature of a Writ of Mandamus". Which placed and kept the case at Common Law.
This guy sucks. Blackstone's Commentaries says in the intro that common law is found only in the bible. People don't know about the Act of 1871.
@@exposeevil5492 I do and many of us are waking. Postal service runs our military and head Quarters is Swiss postal as I understand it.
@@susiejefferson1844 check out my work. What state you on? Im on New Jersey.
@@susiejefferson1844 2 day old channel makes me suspicious.
the problem with common law countries is that they have it for so long they can't really change to civil law so easily even tho civil law is overall better than common law since it is much more predictable and can be much better regulated
Civil law is easier to research and practice for non-lawyers, but common law is much more versatile and equitable. A lot of the older legal codes and procedures are unambiguous. It gets problematic trying to apply codified laws to different factual situations.
@@ritemolawbks8012 the application of the abstract law to a factual Situation ist exactly one of the duties of civol law judges. They must judge according to the law and not according to other personal criteria
@@campuscampus2941 By "personal criteria" are you referring the legal analysis and reasoning used when applying civil law or _stare_ _decisis?_
There's usually a test or scheme to determine a court's error. A very relevant example would be how _Dobbs_ v. _Jackson_ changed law in America regarding un-enumerated constitutional rights.
By personal criteria I am referring to peculiar reasoning when applying common law. I am simply referring to political criteria or prejudism for instance...such elements may play a significant role in an uncodified system such as Common law. Who is the judge and who are the individuals who form the jury (their personal experiences and thoughts, their "forma mentis" their political orientation) may become more relevant on determining the actual verdict than the pure consideration of pure facts. Dangerous.
@@campuscampus2941When you reference "civil law," do you strictly mean the statutory laws passed and codified by elected legislatures, from which judges and juries can't deviate; or do you include the rules of court procedures that are usually created jointly by the legislatures (Judiciary Committees) and the highest court in your definition of civil law.
The reason I asked is because the US would probably be better classified as a "hybrid system," and I've only been in a system with a hierarchy of conflicting laws that has to be construed to different factual situations.
I will probably take the time to review case law in a civil law system. The closest analog in the US, would probably be administrative procedural law or a legal case in Louisiana state court. That would make cases more predictable.
BS
basically, what is said in this video is neither relevant to substance of common vs civil and is just filling up minutes on video time! I dont think you do understand the difference between either, yet ironically you say pointing out procedural differences is not enough, but then only hone in on this further! RUBBISH VIDEO
Explain what's wrong in his explanation or stop complaining.
So, in the anglo countries and their former colonies any idiotic judge can create a new law? No wonder you need a billion expensive advocates...
Let's hope this moronic system declines and a more logical and way more predictable system takes over.
No a judge cannot make a new law. Only the legislature can do that. Judges just apply the law in a case by case basis and have to interpret the meaning of the law. Those Interpretations then establish precedent that other judges follow in cases similar in the future.
So if the legislature makes a law that says "to be in possession of narcotics is punishable by 5 years in prison with a fine up to 25k" a judge I a case may decide what possession means and future judges will reference that rulling when interpreting the law. They also get to decide what the punishment should be. 5 years and with how much in a fine? Maybe nothing in fine.
@@calvinware7957 So in Algo world the judge can modify the laws to fit their personal agenda.
Well, not quite as I said, but the same.
As long as you can modify a legal law and your modification becomes the new law, they make the law.
Only a handful of insanely abusive countries do that. All of them have ties with England as they are former colonies.
And all of them have embarrassingly high justice abuse and legal fraud. Each day you read about another dude wrongly convicted for 20 years by a judge with an agenda.
Should I also point out that in these countries the prosecutors can have political functions? They can use their own prosecution cases to advance their political career!
That is not justice! That is corruption masked as justice.
@@cristitanase6130 you really think people don't get wrongly convicted in countries with civil law? I have news for you.
@@cristitanase6130 but they aren't modifying the law. The language in the law is the same. There is no change in law.
@@calvinware7957 But there is... therefore they modified...
See page. Common Law comes from the dome, a book of old rules and customs. Broken down they equate to 4 Laws only. No harm, loss, breach of peace, no deceit within contract. The Common Law cannot be changed by anyone as it is the foundation of the best justice system in the world. All it needs to work is for the ppl on a whole who make up the Common Law to take responsibility to uphold the Law. Out side of the Law, we have legislation, statutes, or acts, that would only have Lawful backing if consented to by the ppl after being made fully aware of the facts.
So which is the best justice system and why?
@@rmv9194 As explained. The very system we should have had from the start. If it wasn't for those who have sold out to traitors over the years. Judiciary, police, and the the rest. All accountable of course, from top to bottom.
How would it be foundation to the best justice system in the world? And what justice system do you speak of exactly?
you fail to mention that judges in a common law are magistrates and they are not allowed to judge because if they do they become tribunal. and in common law you yourself are the tribunal.it is your court. the only job of a judge is to referee or to watch over proceedings, the mere fact he is even called judge in my opinion is an insult and just a power play for him to make more money off of our cooperate fiction in your name off of promissory notes that he turns into bonds and sells for his own finical gain. what in our country backs our money people. not gold!!! promissory notes that's it. yes common law is more dependent of a jury but a grand jury that is of his peers. further more sovereign peers if he is using common. as much as media mocks and dismisses sovereign people. it our god given right. and all you sheep out there that believe what ever your told lets get this straight there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen that is an oxymoron. they are two separate things. and if u consider your self educated or aware or mindful please learn this the difference in being sovereign & a citizen and the difference democracy and a republic.
@matt Gomes democracy as you mean it, (direct democracy as it was in ancient Athens cannot exist in modern society. Republic means res public (the thing that belongs to every citizen) applies some democratic Institutes, but with millions of people in a city or country, it's not feasible to have much direct democracy acts, that is the reason why we delegate our political power to demcratically elected politicians.
I would like to know why English speakers do not learn how to properly pronunce "stare decisis" and other legal words. It's LATIN. Why do English speakers do not use the correct pronunciation? It's not so difficult!
Fraud please misrepresentation be great
Common law can be found only in the bible! See Blackstone's Commentaries on the laws of England introduction part 2
Common law isnt in the bible
1 John 2:1-2 KJV
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.