Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
At 11:01 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
Thats what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts were extinguished.
Ah! So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh? Well, if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished."
I admit no such thing if you could understand logic you would realize that. There were pre-existing courts, those of King George.
Misleading. And wrong. Wrong, because existing state courts were not eliminated. And misleading, because both "commonlaw" and "equity" courts were "those of King George." At least, the judges were appointed by the King. But the revolution merely meant that George no longer had the authority to appoint the judges; it does not mean that the courts were, themselves, eliminated as institutions.
They were extingished.
"Extinguished"? Like a fire, or something like that? You really need to start using more exact terminology. I think you're trying to read a lot more into the US Constitution than was written into it. In order to be able to claim that it had an effect, you need to document that effect. Find the particular section which "extinguished" a court. Moreover, you need to explain why you're ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, both of which make it clear that there was much continuity not affected by the Federal constitution.
Had common law courts existed (they did not but for the sake of arguement I am indulging you in your fantasy)
When did they not exist? Be very specific; are you referring to just America, or Britain as well?
they would exist no longer.
You haven't documented this claim. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
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.
Your logic is flawed. Most registered voters have never even heard of Browne. Those who have are probably not familiar with his views. There are definitely more people who have heard of Nader than Browne. It's easy to understand why this logic is incorrect: If Bob ran for president and the only people who voted for him were three of his friends, this does not necessarily imply that there are only three people in the entire country who have never heard of him. It does imply that Bob needs a lot more exposure. If Browne's views were not popular, then he would have not been able to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Note that the libertarian party is the only non-mainstream party in history to get a candidate registered in all 50 states twice in a row. It's also the third largest political party in the country. The election turnouts for libertarian candidates for for senate and representatives were published in many newspapers along with the democratic and republican turnouts. It was the only non-demopublican party listed. Mark - -- finger -l for PGP key PGP encrypted mail prefered. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMoyiDCzIPc7jvyFpAQHe5wf+JqDGzgzAcdBmYoBf5/zOOk6OcyegPRE9 xodMzK58luKVSsq6aJIq11Q3XNeiKBdN9gkxHyEn3h8Xphappko+tZEqQp4SHcb3 HRNA872YFNU58ZWjTKOCRWteWEw3OCoEPq9GIQDf6exOwlVwJZ2qti+uG4ZyQoz1 pnO4nl2SW1zq/5T3Tq49O60slqxE3yFbcEQq75ZRKIISxDyCFLw6uL0hsg5lHYTi m8V2BQX/STGC981IvxDtoNYsBMVj2EyZChVS0wqHmfn5b/KexisaeB1OO8Nq/DJ/ m5X1s3mk5gfVwwwHLIX84VsxQr/TrGTiV+GICOfc/miCUylGG/ZAFw== =gisl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note that the libertarian party is the only non-mainstream party in history to get a candidate registered in all 50 states twice in a row.
Untrue, Ross Perot managed it and gained ten times the votes. Also the natural law party managed it, a fact which kida points to the significance of the achievement.
It's also the third largest political party in the country.
Also untrue, the Reform party is a considerably more significant force. Phill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
Note that the libertarian party is the only non-mainstream party in history to get a candidate registered in all 50 states twice in a row.
Untrue, Ross Perot managed it and gained ten times the votes. Also the natural law party managed it, a fact which kida points to the significance of the achievement.
Ross Perot isn't a political party. The Natural Law Party most certainly did not get registered in all 50 states twice in a row. This is only their second election and they only got registered in 36 states in 1992. Ross Perot may have gained ten times the votes, but he did it with 100 times the money. He also accepted matching funds.
It's also the third largest political party in the country.
Also untrue, the Reform party is a considerably more significant force.
The Libertarian party has branches in all 50 states and has run candidates for the senate and representatives. The Libertarian party's homepage does say that they are the third largest political party and the Reform party's page does not seem to have any info on number of members or anything that would contradict the Libertarian party's claim. Mark - -- finger -l for PGP key PGP encrypted mail prefered. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMozEsCzIPc7jvyFpAQHwvAgAgsY/u51gi5Di9UkgoT3YrghHjRyLq7Aw lxeFPzkZ2WcNGqE8Hs8p8K0zf/sykANoHiO7hA4afTAKgAu2MtIRgiGTyxEz186Z wmfKohkYLDiDWchXHKdjU/u9ll+jmlH2Frnc29baaSG+mWDEKWIB4cQkZHL0hD/c CWXX4Acyi1kHC/AIM1TKDne2Taf7JMOzOXiRgR31P94zwjZyQ3QcfPWfG99Yk/gn lp9drlH7jIM/8KciJh1O1/Kfuu75uitAyk/VDXJET10FtVVJa5h+YU/82AYlwuNk jHEr8GUxkkQyN+aXLWW4Pjvc+nrlM50D41DTgHPJ8/rf8ATYORfcNQ== =vUos -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It's also the third largest political party in the country.
Also untrue, the Reform party is a considerably more significant force.
Third Largest != third most significant force. Most people who vote Perot are either Repubs or Democrats, not "Reform Party" members. In the 2000 election, were there are no incumbents, Perot's numers will be about the same as the Libertarians, and if Perot doesn't make the ballot (either death or too sick) the reform party won't even be on the map. Perot doesn't have that many supporters, just more people who have heard of him, so when they get to the Voting Booth, they looked an Clinton and almost threw up, then looked at Dole, but couldn't get their hand to their nose, so they punched the next name they recognized. Perot. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
Petro is right to point out that third largest party does not mean being the third most influential. But by any standards Perot is much more influential than an Libertarian candidate. Perot has managed to get his views onto the national agenda., Browne has not. The only mainstream party to have been in any measure influenced by libertarian ideas is the Republicans who are also the party of extreeme social authoritarianism, even if they don't believe in it they have to fawn on Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition to get through the primaries. As for what happens in 2000 it does not appear that the Republicans will have extricated itself from the religious right's grip. This will probaly mean that they end up putting up another compromise candidate like Dole. With Clinton sitting so far to the right its very difficult for the Republicans to find any response. Unless something happens to change things I don't see any likelyhood of change the next time round. The only factor likely to change anything would be for Congress to take campaign finance reform seriously. I doubt that that is going to happen because the last Congress sold favours more openly than any since 1876. During the Communications Decency Act politicing I was somewhat suprised to find out the cost of the lobbying effort, after all it shouldn't take more than a few plane tickets to send the right people down to DC. Then I found out that the main cost was buying into the committee system to get a hearing. I'm not saying that one side or the other is worse but the tone of the Congress was pretty much set by Newt Gingrtich accepting an inaugural bribe of a couple of million from Murdoch, alledged advance payment for a book that was pulped. There are good reasons why the rest of the world tends to turn off when told about America as the "home of Democracy". Phill
participants (4)
-
hallam＠vesuvius.ai.mit.edu -
jim bell -
Mark M. -
snow