Posted on 08/25/2006 7:47:48 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Nope, you wrote in 207 in response to my question where did the common law come from, "The precedents, standards and customs practiced in the various states. No two states were identical in their common laws." Very plainly you meant the common law came from the states, which isn't true.
I cannot believe what I am reading on this website and you all are defending her comments. She is flat out wrong and must add could be called many names I can think of for her stance that only Christians should be elected to office.
I didn't see that any where in the Constitution or in the documents of our founding fathers that declare you have to be Christian to run for office as a Republican. The documents talk about God and in later years we have 'under God' added to the Pledge; In God We Trust as our motto, and the list goes on. No where does it say you have to be Christian to run for office or be a Republican. Last time I checked it says 'freedom of religion' not this Nation will be a Christian Nation.
I think I have seen it all now on this site. I am a Christian but some of the holier than thou comments on here make me sad that some of you will say anything to defend this woman. Next are some of you folks going to say only your church is the true Christian religion? Where does it stop?
You lie.
Precedents, standards and customs evolved over time from multiple sources, they aren't "made up" by courts.
You ought to have a look at the Mitt Romney threads! They are beyond disgusting. The holier than Thou are having a field day bashing Mitt and his religion.
State courts followed the common law from England, prior to the separation, until they chose to change it, and follow their own precedents, emanating from statutes of the individual state Constitution, or their own judgement. State courts of couse follow the precedents set by federal courts when it comes to federal law. If they do not, well, some litigant should have removed the matter to federal court, and blew it.
I don't recognize the screen names -- unbelieveable is all I can say! I won't vote for Romney because he is from New England not because he is Mormon.
Yep. They didn't "make up" the law.
Mitt is my number two choice. I am rather promiscuous when it comes to the religion of candidates, or lack thereof. It just doesn't matter much to me. I weigh more heavily other factors, and the religion issue becomes rounding error, for me.
Regrettably, I recognize a few of the screen names. Scant few, thankfully. Romney is not "saved" and his religion is a "cult." I would expect to see that type of nasty posting on DU, but not here.
Have you reversed yourself? Or are you now claiming that the courts "made up" the customs and practices they followed?
Grasping and spinning.
the process of codifying common practices into a legal system IS "making it up" ... how else do you think laws are made?
Same here! It is disgusting what I have been seeing around here with some of the comments. Hard to believe they are even conservative.
No, I have no reversed anything.
I do not have a choice at this point. I welcome all.
Mitt's religion is not an issue for me.
I won't vote for Romney because he is from New England not because he is Mormon.
Nice bit of doublethink.
Some aren't, others are the third party types who are always against electable Republicans. They have their own conservative litmus test(s).
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.