[Bluegrass Federalist]

English Common law predates Roman law. On could make a supported argument that the Romans adopted the parts of "English common" (at that time it would more accurate to call it Celtic tribal law or Briton tribal law) into their legal system. That was the strength of the Romans of course, they adopted what was best from every culture and made it part of their own.

I may be wrong, but I do not think so. The Roman Republic predates Christ, as did the death of Julius Caesar. IIRC, the English judges and hence the common law were introduced by William the Conqueror, who came to England in 1066.

Not that either has any business even being discussed as enlioghtening on what the Framers were thinking, or the citizens who ratified the Constituion. Just an academic point.

[Durus]

English judges and hence the common law were introduced by William the Conqueror, who came to England in 1066.

With all due respect the system of law known as "English common law" is not "English" in nature but Celtic. William the Conqueror, at his coronation, promised to uphold existing laws and customs. The Anglo-Saxon shire courts and 'hundred' courts remained intact, as did regional variations and private Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions. Of course both Norman and the Anglo-saxons cultures, being of celtic derivation, would not have found the too many differences in their legal systems. Celtic culture predates the roman empire and references to the practices of the tribal legal system can be found if one wants to look for them. Very few things can be proven to be of actual roman derivation and this isn't one of them which was my primary point.

I certainly agree that the point is mute when discussing the philosophical construct of the framers.