Hoov,

That makes it perfectly clear. And yes, I remember reading those comments a few months back.

Venezuelan law and/or its practice is the correct reference. Laws can be good or bad, just or unjust, depending on the govermental body that creates them.

Nothing can stop a bad government (under either legal system) from making bad laws -- or turning a blind eye to enforcing laws in does not want to support.

How those laws can be changed are what distinguishes Nepolenonic Code -- where the only legislature makes laws (and the courts enforce them) vs. English Common Law where the courts have a role in as their 'interpretation' of the laws. And their interpretation modifies/amends such laws going forward. That why in the US, judges or lawyers are always refering to 'such and such case'. They're citing "precedent" or the latest "intrepretation" of a particular law and how that law should now be followed.

This distinction is the essense of what's behind all the brohahaha of US supreme court nominations. Conservative judges tend to be "textualists" who hold that a statue's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the "intention" of the legislature in passing the law, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law.

In some ways, the conservative side of the US Supreme Court is more "Napolenonic" in nature as they advocate that the court should not "legislate from the bench."

That is more to the essence of Napolenonic Code.

Take the infamous Roe vs. Wade case -- the legalization of late term abortions. The ruling wasn't about abortion per se; it was ruled on "privacy". So why is the "right to privacy", which almost everyone assumes as a given, so controversial. Because the word "privacy" is not mentioned -- not once -- within the entire US Constitution.

I won't digress too far into this, but perhaps some food for thought...while we wait for the permit!