Jim wrote:
Irrelevant, Jim has already conceded the point in his parenthetic aside.
Not at all, the question is what YOU believe. Not what I believe.
What I or Jim, believe is irrelevant in the current context. Jim, the courts and I all agree that Anglo-American jurisprudence is based on the common law, the Constitution notwithstanding. That's good enough for me.
What does it say that common law must be predicated upon? [Hint: what must ALL US law be predicated upon?]
Natural rights, at least that's what the framers of the Constitution believed.
Where in the Constitution is the term 'natural rights' used?
Please re-read my sentence.
I'm not the one who starting quibling over what 'civil law' meant. You're the one who brought up the distinction.
Actually, you brought it up in a mish-mosh or pseudolegalisms. I just clarified the issue.
Civil remedies are under the common law are created by courts not legislatures.
EXACTLY my point, thank you for recognising it so openly.
You're welcome, unfortunately, your analysis is still flawed.
Now go read the Constitution about law, and courts. Who in this country is the ONLY two groups that can make law? One is the states through constitutional amendments. There's one other and it ain't a court.
Right. You are confusing "statutes" and precedents. Courts don't enact laws, but they do create the "common law" through precedents. Apples & oranges, again.
[rest of your wanna-be-tricky word play aside]
Well, if you mean wanna-be lawyer, been there, done that. S a n d y