Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_legal_systems
American common law
The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[15] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[16] and general search warrants.[17]
As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[18] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#American_common_law
Here is Irion’s stipulation:
Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. Dismiss at 8-9.
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga
I confused Irion and Hatfield’s motions. Hatfield did not mention Irion’s motion.
Right here:
Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the
Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a
U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. Dismiss at 8-9.
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga
American common law
The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[15] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[16] and general search warrants.[17]
As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[18] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#American_common_law
Common law is currently in practice in Ireland, most of the United Kingdom (England and Wales and Northern Ireland), Australia, New Zealand, India (excluding Goa), Pakistan, South Africa, Canada (excluding Quebec), Hong Kong, the United States (excluding Louisiana) and many other places.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#American_common_law_legal_systems
A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts (i.e. receives) pre-independence English law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedents originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states, except Louisiana, have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statutes
Examples of “reception statutes”
Virginia, Va. Code §§ 1-200, 1-201, www.state.va.us/cmsportal3/government_4096/codes_and_laws.html
§ 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.
The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 3, § 1-11; 2005, c. 839.)
Virginia’s 1776 statute stated: [The] common law of England, [and] all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first . . . shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.
North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 (1999), www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/Statutes.asp
§ 4 1. Common law declared to be in force.
All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)
Alabama, Ala. Code § 1-3-1 (1975), www.alabama.gov/portal/index.jsp
Common law of England adopted.
The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.
(Code 1907, §12; Code 1923, §14; Code 1940, T. 1, §3.)
http://faculty.samford.edu/~medebow/ReceptionStatutes.html
So what system of law do we have?
How do you explain these Reception Statutes:
Examples of “reception statutes”
Virginia, Va. Code §§ 1-200, 1-201, www.state.va.us/cmsportal3/government_4096/codes_and_laws.html
§ 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.
The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 3, § 1-11; 2005, c. 839.)
Virginia’s 1776 statute stated: [The] common law of England, [and] all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first . . . shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.
North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 (1999), www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/Statutes.asp
§ 4 1. Common law declared to be in force.
All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)
Alabama, Ala. Code § 1-3-1 (1975), www.alabama.gov/portal/index.jsp
Common law of England adopted.
The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.
(Code 1907, §12; Code 1923, §14; Code 1940, T. 1, §3.)
http://faculty.samford.edu/~medebow/ReceptionStatutes.html
I know - egg on my face and all that. I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.
However, lets remember that you could not find a vital court record and needed my help to find it.
And it doesn’t change the fact that Irion stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The funds raised in these FReepathons go to pay our current quarter expenses. But we're also going to try to replace some of our older servers and failing equipment this year so we're going to add a little extra to our FReepathon goals. John is estimating ten to fifteen thousand to do this and I'd like to get it all in place and working before the election cycle is fully heated up, so we'll try to bring in a little extra now, if we can, and the rest next quarter.
Jim Robinson
Those are all active statutes. 1999, 2005, 1975
We are not talking ancient history here.
There are only two systems of law in western countries. There are no other choices.
You can play silly games all day but you still have only two choices: Common Law or Civil Law.
However, lets remember that you could not find a vital court record and needed my help to find it.
Get real! You know my of ability to find things on the web...@You have shown ability to gather an impressive collection of legal minutia.
So you show me the reply and we'll test your theory.
When one plaintiff stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii, the second does no challenge Obama’s birthplace and the third blows up her case in a spectacular manner, I don’t think the judge is going to spend much time pondering Obama’s birthplace. Especially since Irion and Hatfield were challenging Obama’s eligibility due to his father’s birthplace. The judge rejected their NBC = two citizen parents argument.
And lets not forget that the burden of proof was much less stringent then a criminal trial. The judge simply had to think that the evidence and testimony presently indicated that it was “likely” that Obama was born in Hawaii.
So we are in agreement that Irion stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii - good.
You can play silly games all day but you still have only two choices: Common Law or Civil Law.
Since you like Wikipedia so much...@Civil law (common law)
This article is about civil law within the common law legal system.
What am I supposed to do now?
Now maybe we can move on to what you've yet to answer...
What does "considered" mean in Section II?
You are supposed to realize that you have confused two separate concepts.
What I am talking about:
Civil law (legal system)
Civil law (or civilian law) is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29
What you are talking about:
Civil law (common law)
Civil law, as opposed to criminal law, is the branch of law dealing with disputes between individuals or organizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28common_law%29
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.