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

[Kevin Elliott]

At 00:09 -0800  on  3/22/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>Jim wrote:
>
>>  It comes from 'precede' to 'come first or
>>  before' as in importance or scope of coverage
>>  (with respect to court authority).
>>
>>  The Constitution is clearly superior in
>>  authority over any and all courts in America.
>>  Therefore any ruling they may emit must
>>  comply with the Constitution. Quibling over
>>  whether that fits the strictest legal
>>  definition of 'precedence' is nothing more
>>  than a strawman.
>
>No quibbling, just explaining what the common law is.  Anyone who wants to
>believe that the Constitution is precedent court ruling recognized under the
>common law, is welcome to do so.  Trouble is, it just ain't so.  You can
>woulda-coulda-shoulda all day long, but that won't change the facts.  You
>can spend three years in law school and learn something, read a book or two
>about the origins Anglo-American jurisprudence or live in darkness.  The
>choice is yours.

I disagree.  If some judge were to make a ruling that went against 
the constitution, even if the case law in question was entirely 
within common law, his ruling would be unconstitutional and thus null 
an void (after it was filtered through the appellant process and 
invalidated of course...).  However, in practice I can think of no 
situation where this could occur- civil law (the primary area where 
common law rules) simply does not involve anything the constitution 
says anything about.
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
volatile:  Because all programs deserve SOME interrupt code...
____________________________________________________________________
Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott 
<mailto:kelliott at mac.com>                             ICQ#23758827