---

Benefits of Civil Law vs Common Law Are Explained. Common Law Has Roots in the English Crown, Against Which We Once Rebelled; We Are Enslaved Today by the Same Elites.

---

The difference between civil law vs common law lies in the way that the laws are defined and developed. In civil law, legislation is defined centrally and the rules laid down by a centralized official body.

In common law, law is made on a daily basis by the judgments and rulings made in different cases.

Historically, civil and common law were originated and developed by the ancient Romans and the English respectively.

They constitute the two most common varieties of law and in general the countries of the world are governed according to one or other type.

The fact that both types of legal systems have survived over the centuries is testament to their solidity and pertinence.

If there were any fundamental inherent problems in either system, they would probably not still be in action today.

---

---

Corporate Profits Rise, as Well as Poverty

What is less certain is the extent to which different agents in civil law vs common law can influence the application of these legal systems.

Having a solution, which is perfect in itself, does not necessarily protect it from corruption or sabotage. Both systems of civil law and common law can be impacted, in different ways.

Civil law is potentially at risk when central government oversteps the bounds and begins to produce its own legislation or versions thereof.

When this then taints the judiciary, which is part of the central governing and legislative apparatus, the rot sets in.

---

Stealth Trade Agenda

Common law is potentially in danger, but in the opposite sense.

If counter-balancing control from a central government entity weakens unduly, or if central government becomes too remote from the local applications of justice, then with the best intentions in the world, common law as practiced by individuals in courtrooms up and down the country, can be seriously derailed.

Any question of selecting civil law vs common law may come down to a question of culture.

Common law may suit the United States better because it embodies a certain degree of independence for the practicing judges and empowers them to make the law evolve.

This is aligned with notions of independence, and as long as it also observes other fundamental principles, such as equality in the eyes of the law, then the solution should be a fair one.

Likewise, in civil law vs common law, civil law may better suit countries where people have not only elected their government to act on their behalf, but have also delegated a greater amount to that government.

---

Stealth Trade Agenda

Given that civil law was part of one of the most famous republics of all time, that of the Roman Empire, which also served as a model for the creation of the United States, the question is also whether the United States might be better served by a system of civil law and not the common law which exists in most states today.

Elements of civil law are present in any case, and considering that the common law system in the United States has functioned reasonably well so far, it would be surprising and perhaps foolhardy to try to change it to civil law at this stage.

This conclusion assumes of course that in civil law vs common law, the common law of the US maintains its status and philosophy and does not become a civil law in disguise, by the replacement of independent and objective judges by representatives of a central unit looking to bend the provisions of common law to their own particular requirements.

---

---