Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: philman_36

The point is that the Founding Fathers did not see anything wrong with the English common law. They had every intention that America’s legal system would have its foundation the common law that they were so familiar with. Why do you think the Constitution is full of English legal words for example? So the notion that they would throw away the legal concepts they were so familiar with and adopt Vattell’s definitions is revisionist history of.the worst kind.

To answer your question, most states still have those statutes on the books. However the English common law became less and less important as states passed their own laws and built their own common law.


32 posted on 02/29/2012 6:46:51 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Harlan1196
Why do you think the Constitution is full of English legal words for example?
What other legal words would they have chosen? Those "legal words" weren't unique to English law were they? Didn't many countries have similar "legal words"?

To answer your question, most states still have those statutes on the books.
Up to your usual tricks of not answering my question. Once again...
Were those laws later amended?
The last time you did this you had the amended date on them. Should I find your reply to remind you?

33 posted on 02/29/2012 6:52:31 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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