The You Can't Make This Shit Up Department

[Dystopia]

Yes that's a big difference. Ours is quite difficult to change. How well the constitution is enforced is another difference. Ours can be enforced by citizens through the courts.

It's different here, you can't actually claim constitutional rights by directly quoting the constitution, you can only ask them based on laws that were made according to the constitution (and those laws always exist, there are laws for everything and the constitution orders the legislator to create them) - The common example, if my employer fires me because I'm black I'm not gonna quote the 13º article of the constitution about discrimination, but the workers code about working policies, no one uses the constitution directly to give you rights since there are laws that implement the constitution to support you, the constitution is a limit to what laws can be made, our constitutional court appreciates laws and bans them if they are against the constitution, but they don't actually lead trials on concrete cases except in rare situations

By anti discrimination legislation. But you must understand that when the Constitution was written there was no fascism and sexism was a given, as was slavery. It is through free speech that the later two became illegal. Free speech has a rather good track record. We call it the market place of ideas.

Well that justifies it since our constitution was made in 1976 after the revolution, they really worked their asses to assure fascism wouldn't repeat itself, lot's of worker and political rights in abundance, limiting the state in everything, and of course I don't need to say germany was even worse, I think they produced an article saying 'human dignity is always sacred' because of the holocaust. I'll give you an example of stupid restrictions - In France it's illegal to deny the holocaust.

Only if you intend to represent clients in international trade. No, I take that back. Case law is about reasoning by analogy. That's a useful skill to hone regardless of what you do for a living.

We don't use analogy for cases but we use analogy to apply different laws and articles. This doesn't mean courts don't take into account other decisions, sometimes there is a 'tradition' to decide a certain way and courts produce more or less similar decisions, but they are are not obligated to do so, it's just a 'judicial custom/tradition', sometimes supreme courts solve decisions and these can limit the decisions of inferior courts, but they never obligate them to make decision A or B, they just get less freedom to decide.

I personally dislike studying international law and hate with a passion european law (I'm a euro skeptical) so I'll guess it's not worth it.