Jim wrote:
Reply publicly to the list or we're done with this discussion.
(Take a chill pill Jim.) Sorry all, I guess I pushed the wrong button. I sent the following to Jim alone by mistake: Jim wrote:
Q: When did Congress pass a law specifically making the 'common law' in the 7th Amendment equivalent to English Common Law?
A: No need, it always was. The pre-existing common law in this country was not extinguished by independence.
Once again, why does "...shall make no law..." not equate to (common law?) 'Stop' signs?
Once again, the admonition is directed at congress. The common law does not arise out of legislation and, thus, is not affected by the admonition. Quod Erat demonstrandum.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jim wrote:
Q: When did Congress pass a law specifically making the 'common law' in the 7th Amendment equivalent to English Common Law?
A: No need, it always was. The pre-existing common law in this country was not extinguished by independence.
Really? Where is that written? The Declaration of Independance clearly doesn't support the proposition of 'limited' breaking of bonds between two people. It didn't say we 'demand partial independance'. The reality is that ALL law in this country was 'reset' (to use modern parlance) with the Declaration of Independence. The reality of todays common law and all precedence based law for that matter is it is based on a simple principle, "I got away with it yesterday, so I can do it today." Unfortunately (for you, it's okey dokey by me) the ends don't justify the means (well at least in a democracy).
Once again, why does "...shall make no law..." not equate to (common law?) 'Stop' signs?
Once again, the admonition is directed at congress. The common law does not arise out of legislation and, thus, is not affected by the admonition. Quod Erat demonstrandum.
All law, per the Constition, arises out of legislation through Congress. Even if we accept your point, it still MUST pass Constitutional muster, 10th Amendments 'delegation' clause. Simply being 'common law' does not exempt that law from the 10th Amendment. But your point does raise an additional complaint against the concept of 'common law' as equivalent to 'court created' law, and that is there is no specific delegation to create a set of laws that are 'common'. So, a claim to 'common law' still does nothing to eliminate, let alone actually answer, my question about 'right to lie'. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
The reality is that ALL law in this country was 'reset' (to use modern parlance) with the Declaration of Independence.
Really? So murder, theft, assault & battery were all unpunished by the local governments in the new States from Independence until they got around to passing new laws? Debts went unpaid without resort to the courts, contracts were unfilled subject to no sanction other than the opprobrium of neighbours? That the new United States were functional anarchies until new legislatures imposed new rules? I don't think so. What I suspect happened was that the administration of local government and the local courts carried on exactly as before, that office holders continued in office (even with the same title - which is how you come to have "governors" and which is hardly a republican term), judges continued to judge, juries to do whatever juries did back then, administering exactly the same laws on the 5th of July as they had on the 3rd. Which of course is why, in a sense, it really was more of a "war of independence" (as it is usually called over here on the downwind side of the North Atlantic) than a "revolution". In a revolution everything is up for grabs, things change and change fast. Revolutions get mixed up with people like Jacobins, Bolsheviks, Hezbollah (or for that matter Diggers, Levellers and Ranters) who want to change everything from the bottom up. In the USA that happened to some extent, but it was a process that took decades, and nowhere near as root-and-branch as, say the French Revolution. America the day after Independence was still in many ways the same America that had been the day before. Ken
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
The reality is that ALL law in this country was 'reset' (to use modern parlance) with the Declaration of Independence.
Really?
Yes.
So murder, theft, assault & battery were all unpunished by the local governments in the new States from Independence until they got around to passing new laws? Debts went unpaid without resort to the courts, contracts were unfilled subject to no sanction other than the opprobrium of neighbours? That the new United States were functional anarchies until new legislatures imposed new rules?
No, and you know that. Once the Declaration of Independence was issued and prior the Constitution each local community and state issued their own laws, laws that were not English law per se. Simply saying 'the laws of the US are no made in England' is not the same as saying there are no laws. A bullshit strawman. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Ken Brown -
Sandy Sandfort