Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan

The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.

**********************************************

If US Legal History came AFTER the Constitution, how could you use it to define a term in the Constitution?


8 posted on 12/27/2009 3:08:34 PM PST by ROTB (Public Option vs. Insurance: Armed men at my door demanding payment vs a "bill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: ROTB; SHERMAN; NorwegianViking
The founders were well educated in many more laws than English common law.

Have you ever taken time to read early Commentaries on American Law and what references the Founders used to draft the Constitution?

My guess is not, or you wouldn't have posted up such a ridiculous question. You can find all that you need at the following links and what they have to say is specifically that the definition of the English common law subject was NOT the definition adopted by the US for its citizens.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/understanding-your-constitution-historical-references/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/constitutional-nuclear-bomb-blasts-obamas-eligibilty-to-smithereens/

17 posted on 12/27/2009 4:28:34 PM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson