Just saying "common law" seems too British. We should be under American Constitutional Law. The very first thing that should be established is is there a victim. Victimless crimes, by and large, have the government as the victim. With that, anything can become a crime, and the government can be the perpetual victim.
It's a mistake to minimize "common law." You're asking for more of what we already have. Common law is the original "for there to be a crime, there must be a victim and the state cannot be the victim." Common law, our rightful law, puts the people back in charge of initiating their own cases--no lawyers who are pretty much corrupt and really do not serve the people and are ridiculously expensive; no judges who don't belong in our courts, who make up "law" as they go along, don't allow the Constitution in "their" courtrooms, who are making money off the misery of the people, who engage in jury tampering--lawyers do that as well by choosing jurors. Up until 1934, we had our rightful common law. At that time, the judiciary made a law, The Enabling Act, which supposedly combined common law with equity law. The result is the injustice, utter corruption, and total commercialization of what takes place in their courts.
I feel that the Constitution should be the base, but that's just me. Then again my pea brain might be short-circuiting between legislation and a judicial system.
Judges have no place in our law system which is SUPPOSED TO BE common law--except for being someone who keeps the case moving along.
Just saying "common law" seems too British. We should be under American Constitutional Law. The very first thing that should be established is is there a victim. Victimless crimes, by and large, have the government as the victim. With that, anything can become a crime, and the government can be the perpetual victim.
It's a mistake to minimize "common law." You're asking for more of what we already have. Common law is the original "for there to be a crime, there must be a victim and the state cannot be the victim." Common law, our rightful law, puts the people back in charge of initiating their own cases--no lawyers who are pretty much corrupt and really do not serve the people and are ridiculously expensive; no judges who don't belong in our courts, who make up "law" as they go along, don't allow the Constitution in "their" courtrooms, who are making money off the misery of the people, who engage in jury tampering--lawyers do that as well by choosing jurors. Up until 1934, we had our rightful common law. At that time, the judiciary made a law, The Enabling Act, which supposedly combined common law with equity law. The result is the injustice, utter corruption, and total commercialization of what takes place in their courts.
I feel that the Constitution should be the base, but that's just me. Then again my pea brain might be short-circuiting between legislation and a judicial system.