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

[Sandy Sandfort]

Kevin,

You wrote:

> 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.

The reason you cannot think of such a situation is because there is none.
The common law is derived from appellate rulings.  If a lower court goes
against the common law, it will be overruled when it reaches the appellate
level (assuming it is appealed; lots of cases aren't, but they have no
bearing on similar future cases; only appealed cases do).  If they conform
to the common law, they will be affirmed on appeal and that will stand since
the issue has already been adjudicated once before and upheld on appeal.

Also as you figured out, there is little or no overlap between the common
law and constitutional admonitions against government action.  If you can
come up with a concrete example, we can discuss it.


 S a n d y