Liberalism? Conservative? What do these really mean?
Wow...good job! Pretty much sums it up and yeah...prepare to be attacked with namecalling. I'm sure they are on their way!
Are there any arguments for switching from common law to code law?
Both systems have their flaws and drawbacks. I don’t think, you should change law traditions at all.My personal preference is for code law and here are some reasons:1.-Law is more accesible to the general populations. Sure nothing replaces a lawyer, but you will get a more complete view of many laws by reading a code. For example many important rights aren’t in the U.S constitution like the ever famous Miranda Rights.2.- As a lawyer I find much more useful that jurisprudence serves more of a role to clarify rather than to “patch” so to speak what issues the law didn’t mention.3.- The amparo trial. This one is probably the jewel of the crown in Mexico. Just the mere fact that you can suspend the acts of any authority and get constitutional protection that even the president should obey is a big wonder we all are proud off. “Habeas Corpus” serves a similar role, but it’s limited at criminal law.4.- It’s easier to study. By reading the procedural criminal code you can get an idea of how due process works of any country.5.- Outdated laws are much more easy to get noticed in a code. That “this forgotten outdated law changes everything!” never happens in a civil law system.6.- It’s easier to point out to a judge a procedural norm by article rather than by jurisprudence. I rather point why an article applies to a certain situation than explain why a case should apply to this other case.7.- Judges are more prepared than citizens. “judged by your peers” sounds nice in theory. The reality is that a judge in code law has to base his decisions purely on law by giving foundation and motivation in law. Juries might very well be swayed by personal opinions, feelings and might not even have to explain WHY they arrived at their conclusions.8.-Lawmakers have an easier time to derogate or abrogate the law. If something is not working, it’s easier to just change it than wait for judges to change past jurisprudence and solve a case.
What's the difference between a U.S. state and a U.S. territory?
This is defined by Congress at the time the United States gains control over a land area, or at a later time when a territory previously defined is turned into a state, or an independent nation, or (at least in theory) if the territory is sold to another nation. Not all territories have populations, and not all that have populations have the same kind of government: it is defined by Congress, which can redefine the details when it wants to. Becoming a state is a bit more complicated, and there is a (variable over time) minimum population requirement. Territories may have representatives in the US House of Representatives, but while they can do almost anything a state representative can, they cannot vote when the House meets as a whole. [They DO vote in committees and other lesser groups that may form from time to time] They may have an elected government and legislature - it is up to Congress and usually is also related to the population (if any) in the territory. Only a state has Senators. States were originally countries (not just the first 13, but also Texas and Hawaii), and in one case they have the power to call a Convention to amend the US Constitution. [There are two ways - a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress - the only way ever successfully used - or if 2/3 of state legislatures vote for the Convention - which has never happened in the allowed time frame but which in theory could happen] There are a few other technical differences - state governors always have the power to grant pardons or allow extradition - territories usually do not. And the Electorial College, which elects the President, gets members only from states and one territory - the District of Columbia. So, with the exception of DC, territories don’t get electors, but states do.