Replies

French, Spanish, polyneisian have all played a role in this country and are reflected in today's laws.

Ok, show me.

Does this mean you're fully supportive of using foreign law, custom and precedents to judge legal issues in the US?

I thought you were making the joke.

Show you? Are you kidding? Don't you know that Louisana law is derived directly from the Napoleonic Code? Do you really want proof of that? Have you never heard about the native ownership laws in Hawaii? Do you really believe that the 200 plus years of Spanish rule in New Mexico left no legal vestiges? (An aside - the longest continuously used government building in the U.S. is in... Santa Fe.)

If you are really curious, I'd be glad to fish around for some example, but this stuff is fairly common knowledge.

First, despite all the Ginsburg brouhaha, no one has said they are using foreign law as precedent. And all of the people who complained about the discussion of foreign law in Lawrence must've just missed that it was presented in direct response to the arguments in Bowers to the effect that the laws of OTHER countries meted out punishment for sodomy - so the court replied to Bowers.

Do I support using it as precedent? No, and it is not used as precedent. Do I think that relevant legal traditions have nothing to do with with our laws and should be completely avoided? No. You yourself stated that reference to Blackstone was appropriate because our common law is founded in English common law. And for those states where that is true, it is appropriate. For interpreting Louisiana law, the French civil code is equally appropriate. In interpreting tribal law on sovereign reservation matters, Blackstone doesn't really carry much weight. I agree that Blackstone and other historical legal foundations are appropriately referenced. But English common is not the only antecedent.