Jim appears to be arguing that the "common law" courts heis refering to had judges appointed by the King. If so the right to appoint judges to those posts passed to the US government under the treaty of Paris. The Common Law in the UK was the kings law since the Norman conquest. It is as any schoolboy knows judge made law. The doctrine of precedent has become more and more prominent since the renaisance though, effectively preventing judicial lawmaking except in areas where no law is believed to exist. As a system of government I don't think very much of the idea of a bunch of klansmen getting together to decide who they dislike. Sounds much more like a lynch mob than a system of government to me. Since Browne couldn't even manage fourth place, despite the attentions of the net it doesn't look as if the US people are particularly inclined to the libertarian view. Nader managed a vote about 20% higher despite only running in a handful of states while Browne was on the ballot in every state. Contrary to Bellsclaim that the state is being challenged by libertarian and millitia ideas it looks to me that the tide is flowing in the opposite direction if its flowing at all. Phill