At 00:09 -0800 on 3/22/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jim wrote:
It comes from 'precede' to 'come first or before' as in importance or scope of coverage (with respect to court authority).
The Constitution is clearly superior in authority over any and all courts in America. Therefore any ruling they may emit must comply with the Constitution. Quibling over whether that fits the strictest legal definition of 'precedence' is nothing more than a strawman.
No quibbling, just explaining what the common law is. Anyone who wants to believe that the Constitution is precedent court ruling recognized under the common law, is welcome to do so. Trouble is, it just ain't so. You can woulda-coulda-shoulda all day long, but that won't change the facts. You can spend three years in law school and learn something, read a book or two about the origins Anglo-American jurisprudence or live in darkness. The choice is yours.
I disagree. If some judge were to make a ruling that went against the constitution, even if the case law in question was entirely within common law, his ruling would be unconstitutional and thus null an void (after it was filtered through the appellant process and invalidated of course...). However, in practice I can think of no situation where this could occur- civil law (the primary area where common law rules) simply does not involve anything the constitution says anything about. -- ____________________________________________________________________ volatile: Because all programs deserve SOME interrupt code... ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827