Answer:
The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.
Explanation:
The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.
Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.
There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.
Answer:
i think it is a general warning sign
Explanation:
Answer: Woodson v North Carolina and Roberts v Lousianna
Explanation:
In Boykin v. Alabama (1969), the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the death penalty for the first time.
By 1972, Furman v. Georgia ruled a Georgia death penalty law was cruel and unusual punishment, which is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. In 1976 there were five "Death Penalty Cases". While Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, and Proffitt v. Florida, confirmed the states´ death penalties, Woodson v. North Carolina and Roberts v. Louisiana overturned the mandatory death sentences.
