To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Please get your facts straight: Legislatures pass laws. A court order is a judgement. Taking that action to make a statute binding is enforcement. They are three entirely different functions.They are three entirely different functions of THE LAW.
A judgement without law is not legal. Enforcement without law and judgement has no legality or justice. A judgement without law has no entitlement to enforcement. A judgement without enforcement has no effect.
Wrong, common law is law based on precedent, not legislative statutes. The 7th Amendment protects your right to trial by jury in common law cases, cases where there are no legislative statutes. Not only did the Founding Fathers recognize this as law, they viewed it as an essential core function of the courts.
To: Crackingham
Wrong, common law is law based on precedent, not legislative statutes.
No, you are confusing common law (local customs or citizenry-made law) with jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is direction for future courts built up from prior decisions based on an amalgamation of common law and statute law and stare decisis. Jurisprudence is often called "case law" or "judge-made law." But jurisprudence is not law, just a collection of prior judgements that indicate how a case is going to be handled.
As an aside I will give you one more argument. The U.S. Constitution forbids ex post facto (after the fact) laws. But every judgement comes after the facts being judged. So if a judgement were law, then every judgement is unconstitutionally ex post facto. But there is nothing in the Constitution about courts making law at all.
85 posted on
03/26/2005 3:43:09 PM PST by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson