John Doe vs. John Doe: Virginia Court's Decision in Online 'John Doe' Case Hailed by Free-Speech Advocates

[Sandy Sandfort]

Jim wrote:

> Where does the Constitution allow common law?
> [It clearly does but I'd like to see the spot
> you believe is the authoritative statement.]

Irrelevant, Jim has already conceded the point in his parenthetic aside.

> What does it say that common law must be
> predicated upon? [Hint: what must ALL US
> law be predicated upon?]

Natural rights, at least that's what the framers of the Constitution
believed.

> Does Justinian, or English law qualify?

Other than the oddity of Louisiana, Puerto Rico and the like, there is no US
jurisdiction based on civil law, only the English common law.  One might as
well bring up the law of gravity as the civil law in this discussion.

> Now, if Congress can't constitutionaly create
> criminal law relating to speech where does it
> say it allows such an exception for civil?

Civil what?  The question makes no sense because it assumes facts not in
evidence.  Civil remedies are under the common law are created by courts not
legislatures.

> Does "...shall make no law..." not include
> civil law?

a) Other than Louisiana, etc., there is no civil law jurisdictions in the
US.  Specifically, the federal courts are based on the common law system

b) The word Jim left out was "Congress" ("CONGRESS shall make no law..."
The common law is a creature of the courts, not legislatures.

> It is clear that regulating speech is NOT
> prohibited from the states originaly.
> However, we now have a specific amendment
> that spreads those strictures to the states.
> So, in a situation where the fed's and the
> state's are prohibited, per the 10th, who
> get's to decide the issue?

The courts.

> Do we have anybody suggesting a 'civil tort
> exception' amendment?

Not required.  Torts are not enacted by Congress.

> ...I don't think anybody even looked at it
> from that perspective.

Yeah, I think that's safe to say.  :-D


 S a n d y