You want to see law? Here ya go!This was the results of work done by the Pennsylvania Supreme court in determining which English statues apply in Pennsylvania. I will remind you that Philadelphia was where the convention was held, and the legal community of Philadelphia (including some of these judges) actually participated in the creation and ratification of the US Constitution.
This is as close as it gets to the horses mouth.
You were busted trying to pass off this same steaming turd on July 26, 2023.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=159#159
159 posted on 7/25/2023, 5:40:10 PM by DiogenesLamp
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=168#168
168 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:55:28 AM by Penelope Dreadful
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=169#169
169 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:17:26 PM by woodpusher
There you presented your crap with an unlinked image of a page from a different source. It was slick but you got caught.
As I stated there:
It is, indeed, thrilling that someone with the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania expressed an opinion you so cherish that you attributed it to four other people you say were at the Constitutional Convention. The author of your book was born in 1763 and died in 1820. The youngest delegate to the Constitutional Convention was Jonathan Dayton, age 26. Your author would have been, at best, 24.
As noted:
You can get rid of all those judges you cited. They have nothing to do with the page 26 you exhibited. The page you exhibited was written by the President of the Courts of Common Pleas, of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania who was never a justice of the supreme court of anywhere, and not by anyone else.
Moreover, as I further noted in July:
With all that being said, anything issued prior to the 14th Amendment, and inconsistent with it, would be struck down by the 14th Amendment. It does not matter what was said or who said it.All that trouble of mismatching the title page of a book, and a text page from another book, and attributing the authorship of one to the text of the other, gone to waste when you could have been doing something productive, such as reading some Pennsylvania law.
ยง 1503. Applicability of colonial law.(a) English law.--The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777.
https://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/Precept.html
Reception statute of Pennsylvania, 1777:[[section]]1. "Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.
[[section]]2. Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, as orders taking or subscribing any oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance or fidelity to the king of Great Britain, or his successors, or oath of office; and so much of every law or act of general assembly aforesaid, as acknowledges any authority in the heirs or devisees of William Penn, Esq., deceased, the former governor of the said province, or any other person whomsoever as governor; and so much of every law or act of general assembly, as ascertains the number of members of assembly in any county, the time of election and the qualifications of electors; and so much of every law or act of assembly aforesaid, as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no coerce or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding."
Pennsylvania, Act of 1777, An Act to revive and put in force such and so much of the late laws of the province on Pennsylvania, as is judged necessary to be in force in this commonwealth, and to revive and establish the Courts of Justice, and for other purposes therein mentioned.
II. Be it therefore enacted, and it is hereby enacted, That each and every one of the laws or acts of General Assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said be province on the fourteenth day of May last, shall be in force from and binding on the inhabitants of this state from and after the tenth day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this General Assembly; and all and every person and persons whomsoever are hereby enjoined and required to yield obedience to the said laws, as the case may require until the said laws or acts of General Assembly respectively shall be repealed or altered, or until they expire by their own limitation; and the common law and such of the statute laws of England as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as is hereafter excepted.
And I repeat now what I said then:
With all that being said, anything issued prior to the 14th Amendment, and inconsistent with it, would be struck down by the 14th Amendment. It does not matter what was said or who said it.
You misrepresented the book and the author. You hid the name of the book and the singular author. And it is NOT a report from the judges of the Supreme Court.
The page is from a book by a single judge from the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania. Judge Samuel Roberts' only connection to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was that he was admitted to practice at said court. He was never a justice of that court.
Roberts was the sole author of the book, A Digest of Select British Statutes. There were no co-authors. Judge Roberts is the sole author of your exhibited page 26. The book is a recitation of British Statute Law by Roberts.
And of course the book got a second edition in the 1840s if I recall correctly.
None of those brilliant legal minds in Pennsylvania thought to call it out?
You're just wrong my dude.