That the one place 'common law' is mentioned in the Constitution it is in direct conflict with contemporanious English common law? Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:16 PM 3/21/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
That the one place 'common law' is mentioned in the Constitution it is in direct conflict with contemporanious English common law?
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
It acknowledges the existence of common law. Now that this has been cleared up, your contention is that the US is not bound by, and does not follow ANY of the precepts of English common law, is that correct? Proceeding on the assumption of the affirmative (dangerous, but the electrons are already paid for), where is the American common law that replaced the now rejected English common law, that A7 refers to? Reese
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Reese wrote:
It acknowledges the existence of common law. Now that this has been cleared up, your contention is that the US is not bound by, and does not follow ANY of the precepts of English common law, is that correct?
No, Reese, that isn't my contention. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 06:56 AM 3/22/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Reese wrote:
It acknowledges the existence of common law. Now that this has been cleared up, your contention is that the US is not bound by, and does not follow ANY of the precepts of English common law, is that correct?
No, Reese, that isn't my contention.
Then what is your contention, evidenced by your earlier objections to English common law? Reese
<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. ... 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; "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> details: http://www.f-f-a.com/comlaw.htm phillip -----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Jim Choate Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 12:17 AM To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: Did you notice... That the one place 'common law' is mentioned in the Constitution it is in direct conflict with contemporanious English common law? Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 23:16 -0600 on 3/21/01, Jim Choate wrote:
That the one place 'common law' is mentioned in the Constitution it is in direct conflict with contemporanious English common law?
That sounds to me like they we're basicly satisfied with the rest of english common law...
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This brought to mind another interesting question. When examining this amendment is the $20 in 1700's coinage or in current dollars? How much would that $20 be worth today anyway? -- ____________________________________________________________________ volatile: Because all programs deserve SOME interrupt code... ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott mailto:kelliott@mac.com ICQ#23758827
At 7:09 PM -0800 3/23/01, Kevin Elliott wrote:
At 23:16 -0600 on 3/21/01, Jim Choate wrote:
That the one place 'common law' is mentioned in the Constitution it is in direct conflict with contemporanious English common law?
That sounds to me like they we're basicly satisfied with the rest of english common law...
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This brought to mind another interesting question. When examining this amendment is the $20 in 1700's coinage or in current dollars? How much would that $20 be worth today anyway?
First, there is never any kind of mention of "or in the currency of 1856 or 1917 or 1987 or 2089 of whenever the law is applied." Trust me. Second, the dollar is defined at one point in the Constitution as one twentieth of an ounce of gold. (A one troy ounce gold piece was thus a $20 gold piece, or a double eagle, until the dollar was devalued by the communists in the 1930s. The dollar was unlinked to gold completely by the later communists.) What all this means in terms of VII is probably meaningless. Arguing that taxes can only be collected on "real dollars," expressible as redeemable gold, is a favorite exercise of certain kinds of tax protestors. While we can be sympathetic to their claims that the commies are stealing to distribute to the deadbeats and drifters and welfare hoes, using this kind of argument will never result in any kind of victory. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 09:16 PM 3/23/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
a $20 gold piece, or a double eagle, until the dollar was devalued by the communists in the 1930s. The dollar was unlinked to gold completely by the later communists.)
My favorite part was when it was illegal to own gold for financial (e.g., vs. electronic) purposes. .......
participants (7)
-
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Kevin Elliott -
Phillip H. Zakas -
Reese -
Tim May