@positive law
See also: natural law statute
Do you want another?
We are a common law country (with the exception of the state of Louisiana). There are two main legal systems in the west:
Common law and Civil law. There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.
A common law judicial system has as its basis the idea that the same set of facts should mean the same thing every time. Hence the emphasis on case law and precedent.
The Common Law = the entire body of legal case law that involves the interpretation of law. Minor v. Happersett? Part of the common law.
Common law is not informal law. Don’t know where you got that peculiar notion from.
Nice ancient history - too bad the 14th amendment blew all that away.
Bringing up the past again?
Well it isn't an "either/or" answer.
There's Constitutional Law, from the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions.
There's statutes and ordinances on the federal, state, or local levels.
There's common law, that being the concept of precedence.
And there's administrative law at the federal, state, and local level.
Come to think of it, you never did answer this question either.
How can Constitutional law be part of a common law system?
The only reply I got to reply 236 (that's the reply where my question is) was this...
Can you show a single Supreme Court ruling on a Constitutional issue where case law and precedence was not a factor?
If we were not a common law country, why are eligibility lawyers using Minor? Are you saying it is a binding precedent on a Constitutional matter?
You didn't answer the question. In trying to redirect you don't take the other aspects of our system of law into consideration believing that all of our law is common law when it that is only a part of it.
Common law, that being the concept of precedence as you're indicating in yur questions above, is only part of our legal system.
So maybe I'll try again...How can Constitutional law be part of a common law system?
Those laws that have been duly enacted by a properly instituted and popularly recognized branch of government. Positive laws may be promulgated, passed, adopted, or otherwise "posited" by an official or entity vested with authority by the government to prescribe the rules and regulations for a particular community. In the United States, positive laws come in a variety of forms at both the state and federal levels, including legislative enactments, judicial orders, executive decrees, and administrative regulations. In short, a positive law is any express written command of the government. The belief that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules and regulations laid down by the government is known as Positivism.
positive law n. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law," was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651). (See: natural law)
Where is the term natural born Citizen mentioned anywhere in the 14th Amendment?
Here is a hint:
NOWHERE!
NOT ONCE!
IT IS NOT THERE!
How about from James Madison:
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
Nice ancient history - too bad the 14th amendment blew all that away.
Only in the eyes of someone who is not intelligent enough to understand what it says. As is Mentioned in the Landmark Supreme court case of Marbury v Madison:
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. ~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
Your interpretation of the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" results in those words being without effect. Therefore Your understanding is wrong.
In any case, it conspicuously omits the words "natural born" so you are doubly wrong. (Wrong on TWO SEPARATE POINTS.)