Two different systems of justice developed in Europe:
1. In one system the judges were given the power to interpret the law as they saw fit.
2. In the other, the judge was expected to rule with deference to precedence and case law.
The second is refered to as a Common Law System. That is the type of justice system America has.
Interestingly enough, the English Common Law System owed it's existance to the Presumption of a Monarchy. The term "Magistrate" was derived from the Latin word for "Master", which is no doubt the correct description of the relationship between the Magistrates of the Court and the rest of the population.
Kings appointed Magistrates to Handle the every day legal cases which were beneath the King's interest to deal with, but let it never be forgotten that the Judge was a representative of the King and spoke on his behalf in his own "Court" room.
I have recently been looking at a few legal issues, and I was amused at the jargon used in the legal profession. "Comes now the Plaintiff", "Pleading", "Writ of Execution", and so forth, all seemed reminiscent of the trappings of Monarchy. That was when I realized that this was exactly right. The English Court system derived it's status and Power from the Crown, and it seemed to me that too much of what is customary in our legal system is a remnant from the Monarchical descent and practices of the English Court system.
When we broke with the Monarchy, we should have turned much of this stuff out on it's ear. When a Person goes to court, it is not appropriate to describe as a "Pleading" when an American is only asking the court to do it's D*mned Job! Americans do not Beg or Plead, they request, as from one equal to another. According to OUR law, the Judge is not supposed to be better than any other American, he is supposed to be our equal, and entitled to no more respect than is anyone else. The Judge even sets upon a throne! :)
I am thinking it is about high time we impeached the imperial judiciary, and Make them operate under the principles that the United States was founded on.
Now what was it you were saying about that English Common Law stuff? :)
We used English terminology but created a uniquely American common law. The finest justice system in the world.
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.
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