Kevin, I think, said: However, in practice I can > >> think of no situation where this could > >> occur- civil law (the primary area where > >> common law rules) simply does not involve > >> anything the constitution says anything > >> about. Civil law and common law are distinct and oppositional terms. At least they were once. I don't think you could find a "pure" legal tradition in developed nations, at least not under my understanding of these polluted concepts. (Note: I refer to to civil law the same way as Kevin did in everyday conversation, as do most lawyers.) But more correctly... Civil law: Corpus Iurus Civilis 535 CE Justinian (Roman Law - very few sovereigns, Scotland, I think...); history, statutory interpretation; stone tablets - 10 Commandments (broad principles anticipate all situations); rigidity. Common law: 11th Century England; fact patterns; stare decisis; flexibility; change-with-the-times; go-with-the-flow. Jim seems to see/k a pure civil law tradition in the US. If we were in a *totally pure* civil tradition, his questions would be on the mark. However, we have a common law legal tradition - even in regard to constitutional interpretation. Choate advocates a pure civilist legal tradition with THE CONSTITUTION as the fount. Maybe so does Scalia, but just in regard to the US Const: http://aaup.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/99/princeton/5937.ctl For Choate to even sense the question(s), to get so near it/them... demonstrates some sort of constitutional idiot sapiency, nevermind his digital personality disorders. (That's a compliment, Choate.) And, Choate is (in layman's terms) to some extent correct in regard to revolutionary "reset" buttons, or divorce lawyers across the country would be citing The Code of Hammurabi: 132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband. (Hammurabi is ancient family law code... he had the answer to that paternity thread.) ~Aimee