Case Law: Can It Be Revoked?

Case law is an important aspect of the legal system, guiding future decisions based on past rulings. However, it is not set in stone and can be revoked or overturned. This paragraph will explore the conditions under which case law can be revoked and the implications of such actions, providing insight into the dynamic nature of legal interpretations and their impact on the evolution of the law.

Case law can be revoked by new statutory law

For example, a case law interpretation of a statute may be that it applies in a certain situation. However, if a new statutory law is passed that clarifies the statute and states that it does not apply in that situation, then the case law interpretation is revoked.

Similarly, if a case law interpretation of a statute is that it means something specific, that interpretation can be revoked by a new statutory law that provides a different meaning. This is often done to update laws to reflect changing social norms and values. For instance, a case law interpretation of a statute may have been made at a time when social norms and values were different, and the interpretation reflected those norms and values. However, if social norms and values change over time, a new statutory law can be passed to revoke the previous case law interpretation and ensure that the law stays aligned with current norms and values.

In addition, a case law interpretation may be revoked by a new statutory law to address new technologies or situations that did not exist or were not considered when the original interpretation was made. For example, with the advent of the internet and increased use of electronic devices, new statutory laws have been passed to address issues such as electronic searches and seizures, thereby revoking previous case law interpretations that did not consider these modern contexts.

Citizens in a democracy can permit authorities to make and enforce rules

In a democracy, citizens are endowed with certain fundamental rights and responsibilities, and they are the ultimate source of authority. This means that citizens in a democracy can permit authorities to make and enforce rules. A majority of citizens in a democracy can agree to allow certain authorities to establish and enforce rules that define what behaviour is permitted and encouraged in their community. These rules are referred to as laws.

Constitutional democracy, a form of democracy practised in countries such as Germany, Israel, Japan, and the United States, is characterised by legal and institutional mechanisms that limit the authority of the majority to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. This ensures that the rules and laws made by the authorities are fair and just for all citizens.

Citizens in a constitutional democracy have the right and opportunity to participate in the political system and are expected to be informed and actively involved in the democratic process. They should understand the fundamental principles and values of democracy and be committed to working towards narrowing the gap between democratic ideals and reality. This includes promoting ideals such as procedural justice, where fair procedures are used by government agencies and law enforcement in gathering information and making decisions, and equality, where all citizens are equally entitled to participate in the political system and have the right to equal opportunities for improving their material well-being.

By permitting authorities to make and enforce rules, citizens in a democracy can facilitate order, encourage social justice, guarantee personal freedoms, and serve as a moral guide for their community. This process of rule-making and enforcement is a vital aspect of a representative system, where the legislative process emphasises the protection of minorities and ensures that all sides are heard and considered.

The Fourth Amendment: search and seizure of electronic devices

Case law interpretations are law unless they are revoked by new statutory law. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It states that:

> [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure of electronic devices. This includes electronic surveillance, which is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. A search under the Fourth Amendment occurs when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Many electronic search cases involve whether law enforcement can search a company-owned computer that an employee uses to conduct business. Although the case law is split, the majority holds that employees do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to information stored on a company-owned computer. In the 2010 case of City of Ontario v. Quon, the Supreme Court extended this lack of an expectation of privacy to text messages sent and received on an employer-owned pager.

Warrantless searches and seizures of properties are not illegal if the objects being searched are in plain view. However, a warrantless search may be lawful if an officer has consent to search, if the search is incident to a lawful arrest, if there is probable cause to search, and there is an exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search. For example, an officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop.

A majority vote in each House is required to confirm the President's VP nomination

Case law interpretations are law unless they are revoked later by new statutory law. A majority vote of citizens in a democracy can agree to permit certain authorities to make and enforce rules.

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution states that a vote in each House is required to confirm the President's nomination for Vice-President when there is a vacancy in that office. This is a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives presents the charges, while the Senate sits as a court to try the impeachment. No impeached person may be removed without a two-thirds vote of those Senators voting, with a quorum being present.

The 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process of choosing the President and Vice-President. The Electors meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, ensuring that at least one of them is not an inhabitant of the same state. The votes are then counted, and the person with the majority of votes for each position is elected. If no candidate has a majority, the House of Representatives chooses the President from the three candidates with the most electoral votes. The Vice-President is then chosen by the Senate from the two candidates with the highest number of votes.

The 25th Amendment also outlines the process for when the President declares themselves unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office. In this case, the Vice-President becomes the Acting President until the President transmits a written declaration to the contrary. If the Vice-President and a majority of executive officers disagree, they can transmit a declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives stating that the President is unable to discharge their duties. Congress then decides the issue, and if they determine by a two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge their duties, the Vice-President continues as Acting President.

Common law: the right to refuse or demand a jury trial

The right to a jury trial is provided by the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. The Sixth Amendment states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to a trial by an impartial jury of the state and district in which the individual allegedly committed a crime. The Seventh Amendment states that for suits in common law, if the "value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."

The right to a jury trial is not absolute, however. In some cases, the right to a jury trial can be waived, either by the defendant or by the court. For example, in a federal district court, defendants can ask to waive the jury, but the court and prosecutor must agree. Additionally, the waiver must be in writing and done knowingly and voluntarily. Generally, the right is not waivable when a defendant faces the possibility of the death penalty.

The Supreme Court has also set legal precedent in several important decisions regarding the right to a jury trial. For instance, the Court has held that "no offense can be deemed 'petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized."

The right to a jury trial is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system and is protected by the Constitution. It is important to note that the right to a jury trial may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of each case.

Frequently asked questions