Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 5 months agoJustice Department won't prosecute Garland for contempt, says refusal to provide audio wasn't crimeapnews.comexternal-linkmessage-square54fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkJustice Department won't prosecute Garland for contempt, says refusal to provide audio wasn't crimeapnews.comRapidcreek@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 5 months agomessage-square54fedilink
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months agoYes. It is. It’s assumed because that’s how the legal theories at the time it was written went.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·5 months agoAlright show me where in the constitution it is
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months 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-up0·5 months ago your whole point is that its in the constitution right? Yes. It is.
minus-squarestoly@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months agoThis is a you thing. If you want to learn more, read the wiki article.
minus-squareblazera@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·5 months agoOh ive learned plenty. That the constitution has nothing in it to support common law.
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.
Good for you, champ!