On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
<begin theft> People v. Rehman, 253 C.A. 2d 119, 61 Cal. Rptr. 65, 85. "Common law" consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. Bishop v. U.S., D.C. Tex., 334, F. Supp. 415, 418.
Ah, but now you've used a court to justify a courts action. Which is exactly my point. You're arguing in circles.
The Constitution of and for the United States of America is a Common Law document and cannot be understood, interpreted and applied except at the Common Law;
ALL law in the US is common law (see Amiee's def's of the distinction). What phrase does the Constitution start with?
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument." Ex Parte Bain., 12 U.S. 1., 7S. Ct.781. <end theft>
Really? Where did the framers direct us to do that? Jefferson ways the earth (and it follows the laws we derive from our existance) follow from the living not the dead?
details: http://www.f-f-a.com/comlaw.htm
You're just arguing in circles and demonstrating my point about 'predecence'. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------