Originally Posted by
Horatius
You do realize that "mere precedent" is literally the underpinnings of all of common law, right?
No, of course you don't.
This is like the Anti-Freeman on the Land theory. Instead of the common law being all-powerful, it apparently has no power at all.
Now, aside from all this, what is the point of your obsession with this aspect of Canadian constitution law? What do you expect us to do, if you manage to convince us that Liz really is secretly running everything?
Does the supreme law of the land (Constitution) fall under common law?