Did you notice...

[Jim Choate]

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 at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------