Posted on 12/05/2005 5:00:58 PM PST by RWR8189
The divergence of Britain from the Continent can be traced to Bonaparte's greatest victory 200 years ago -- and his enduring legacy.
IT IS IN Book III of "War and Peace" that Tolstoy memorably describes the Battle of Austerlitz — "the battle of the three emperors" — the 200th anniversary of which fell on Friday. This was the greatest victory of Napoleon Bonaparte's career. At the time, it seemed far more important than his navy's defeat at Trafalgar two months before. Its consequences are still with us.
By routing the combined armies of Austria and Russia, Austerlitz enabled Napoleon literally to redraw the map of Europe, conjuring up a new Confederation of the Rhine from the Baltic to the Alps.
Moreover, by obliging the Austrian Emperor Francis to renounce the title of Holy Roman Emperor, Napoleon snuffed out an institution that had been at the heart of Europe for more than a millennium.
Napoleon's idea of Europe was double-edged. On the one hand, he overthrew decadent dynasties such as the Bourbons of Naples and established what was to become the model for Continental legal systems, the Code Napoléon. Later, in exile, he claimed that he had "wished to found a European system, a European code of laws, a European judiciary" so that "there would be one people in Europe." Yet, at the same time, Napoleonic Europe was without question an authoritarian empire.
What finally killed Napoleon's Europe was the fatal combination of the English Channel and the Russian winter. Nevertheless, it proved impossible to restore the old pre-Napoleonic Europe.
Napoleon fell; Bonapartism lived on, with the civil code and economic dirigisme as perhaps its most enduring legacies.
And how they have endured! Ask yourself what are the biggest differences between England and the Continent?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
But wasn't it frozen in time after Louisiana became part of USA? Codex law has to rewritten once a while.
"Common laws are like feet/pounds/gallons. Codex law is like meters/kilograms/liters."
Recently, the great minds that write the Louisiana codex law were asked to replace the word 'bastard' in the cord because it was demeaning to the child and the child was an innocent party. There was much arguement as to what the new word was to be. The words used by the rest of the 50 states were rejected - they were 'civilians' and didn't want to contaminate their code with common law words. So instead of using words to bring Louisiana in line with the rest of the country, they chose "born of the marriage/born not of the marraige".
So it is different, just not necessarily better. As most systems, it is only as good as the drafters. So when you have drafters on the child support laws say that they think it is acceptable to take 100% of a persons income as child support... well, y'all had better just bend over.
"frozen in time?" Surely you jest.
This organization (http://www.lsli.org/) is responsible for updating it.
Naturally it is the product of another mini-dictator - Mr. Long.
If you want to keep from being blindsided in the Legislature, then you had best know what this group is up to. Particularly since once they agree on a new law - it has an 80% chance of passage.
This is mainly due to the fact that this organization is made up of the top judges (supreme, appeals, etc); the top administrators; and the top legislators.
My hands are still tingling from all the typing I did this spring fighting one of the head of their family and persons committee try to end run a bill through the legislature. (And yes, after 5 years of lugging it around, I finally got to use the "100% of a persons income as child support" line.
She raised the issue of her report in the house. I nailed her on it in the Senate committee. The shut the hearing down in mid sentence on me. ROFLOL. I had best enjoy it, because she will be back.)
We have a grave difference in our understanding of socialism!
and a parliament is just an elected king- it mixes too much the executive and legislative powers. Further giving it judicial powers- which the civil law does- is foolish. (Of course the civil law does not mandate a parliament).
Slavery was outside of the law here, although there were some laws regulating their treatment- as there were for animals. A man who is free to own other men as slaves is a very free man, paradoxically.
"Kilograms... pounds"
It's not the unit of measure, but who does the measuring and what they measure.
The Napoleonic "finder of fact" is inferior to the two adversaries of the English system. I see from a quick search that advances in law seem to come from the "common law" systems, not the civil law ones. They do adopt those advances- but they don't make them.
As long as someone else is working to improve the law through common law systems the civil code can be kept useful by adopting the advances they make. But OTOH common law countries can clean up their precedential rulings through legislation- whatever other countries do (a relationship very like that of capitalism vs socialism) .
Obviously I'm no expert on civil law, and am fqmiliar with common law only in the American system. Perhaps one of the lawyers will wander by and give a more detailed debate.
This is one of the "paradoxes" of the common law.
Obviously I'm no expert on civil law
I am not either, but I know that in Poland it is not only "civil law"/civil codex, there is also ciminal/penal codex, codex of criminal proceedings, banking law, labor codex etc ...
For example criminal codex lists and defines all crimes and recommends penalty for each. It quite thin books and so lucid that average citizen can get familiar with few laws applying to his case in half hour!
You can view ALL Polish codices on this page:
http://prawo.interia.pl/kodeksy?aid=7717
Penal codex is in upper part, look up the drop down box "kodeks karny". Other laws are below. It is in Polish but you can get the idea of simple clarity of these laws by looking at their format.
You need to come up with a new analogy, this one is silly.
Kilograms and meters are exactly convertable to and from pounds and yards. There is no usable difference. Computing any result in either form (English/Metric) gives answers that are equivalent. You can claim there is some convenience in using metric in getting the result, but the result is the same.
To compare that to the difference between 'the state has to prove your guilt', and 'you have to prove your innocence' is absurd. The results provided by the English and Napoleonic judicial methods are not the same.
I call BS!!!
The "Code Civil" did not even come into being until long AFTER the constitution was ratified. Indeed - the "Revolution" in France did not even begin until 1789! French "democracy" thus post dates the US Constitution.
Again, BS and has no bearing on the subject.
In all of the lands subjugated by Napleon, the "freed" people were subjugated to the French system and were forced to "pay" for this wonderful subjection (France needed funds to support her Army AND pay its enormous debts).
This is a LIE. In contintal law you DO NOT need to prove your innocence. And I have seen cases in USA when the accused was freed only after proving his innocence.
You are confused. That continental law was developed after US constitution does not mean that the underlying ideas did not develop in Europe or France. It is common that ideas are implemented faster in the periphery of the civilization.
And the point is with the Constitution that it is the main element in US law that resembles the logical structure of the codex. And most of Americans think that US Constitution is the greatest thing in their law, for a good reason!
French "democracy" thus post dates the US Constitution.
Hey, French had monarchy well into the XIX century, so what? And the Fifth Republic is quite new.
I agree. Being free from taxation is cool.
Possibly I am wrong on this, but I do resent the implication that I am a liar. A google search on 'napoleonic code presumption of innocence' shows a number of sites saying that it is clearly in the text. However, it appears that even members of the British Parliament don't believe it is there in practice. They are close enough to know better than I, or maybe close enough to be more prejudiced.
The fact that there is no jury of peers to moderate the states interest suggests to me that since the state protects itself, it is not in the interest of the state to show the prosecutors as being wrong. But that's a different question than the one at hand.
The original point I made was your use of the meter/yard analogy to suggest that continental law was more modern than english law, when the analogy really suggests that they are identical in impact.
I still think you need to find a new analogy.
No, I don't want that. But, if they were able to do it, and have the power to do it, then they should go ahead and try. The problem is the immigrants. The problem is non-European people living on European soil.
I thought NAFTA was a bad thing? A sort of EU for the Americas?
I'm for free trade, but I don't trust the agendas of transnational organisations.
? of interest ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.