Posted on 02/13/2010 9:43:57 PM PST by patlin
The conspiracy debunkers continue to argue that the feudal definition of ‘natural born subject’ is that of the ‘natural born citizen’. As I have shown, they argue that the term ‘native’ = ‘natural born’ regardless of the context in which it is being used when referring to persons holding dual allegiances. If foreign influences were not of consequence, then there would have been no need for the grandfather clause, ‘or a citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’...
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
INDONESIAN GO HOME
“What, was kept in place pertaining to the common law of England was the form of jurisprudence and a few concepts of the law that pertained to the safety & protection of the people.”
I do not know what the author means by “the forms of jurisprudice”, but in fact MOST of the Common Law remained unchanged.
There would be NO REASON for the Colonies to throw out the vast bulk of English common law. The Colonists had no problem with most of it. The Colonists broke away in large part because they believed that they were being deprived of traditional ENGLISH liberties and rights.
In fact, pretty much the WHOLE of the Common Law of England, as it existed in 1789, was kept.
American courts, considering disputes before them, relied on English law as precedent WAY into the 19th Century. The way you became a lawyer in America in the 19th Century was to study the law books, of which there were only two authors: Blackstone (1765-1769) and Lord Coke (1552–1634). Both English.
As evidence that the English Common Law was kept for the most part, note that the question of whether one had a right to a jury in a particular civil (not criminal) dispute or for a particular subject matter, was “whether or not one had a right to a jury trial under the laws of England in 1789.”
There is more direct evidence:
The Civil Code of California, for example, states:
CIVIL CODE
SECTION 22-22.2
22. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State.
22.1. The will of the supreme power is expressed:
(a) By the Constitution.
(b) By statutes.
22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.
The November 11, 1776 Constitution of the State of Maryland states:
III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the courts of law or equity . . . .
These are just examples. Obviously the law has evolved in this country since 1789 along a different path than English law, in many areas. But the notion that Declaration of Independence, or the ratification of the Constitution, wiped the slate clean of any continuity from English Common Law except for a few procedures and public safety laws is just plain wrong.
Therefore, much of it stayed in place. But those parts that the feudal government changed & used to oppress the people were cast off.
How I learned about the root of law...but not in law school http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546056/posts
Post 5 meant for you. Some info on Blackstone, Locke and others.
Your welcome.
“Obviously you do not know the roots of common law. It was NOT established by the English monarchies and was not put in place under the feudal government. The feudal government usurped the original common law of the ‘freeman’ that established England.”
Well, I obviously do not know what you think you know.
“It was NOT established by the English monarchies”
I’m with you so far.
“was not put in place under the feudal government.”
Well, yeah, but it was not “put in place” by anyone. It was based on ancient custom that developed over a long time. That’s what made it “common”.
The feudal government usurped the original common law of the ‘freeman’ that established England.
I need you to help me out with some dates here. When was it that the “freeman” “established” England? After the Romans? Before William the Conquerer? And who was this “freeman”? And when did the usurpation take place? Before or after the Magna Carta?
Finally, when did the feudal era end in England, if it has already ended?
I smell a politijab troll
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.