Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

Post Reply
User avatar
realist
Posts: 34943
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#1

Post by realist » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:58 pm

Nolu Chan published the following...





[link]Common Law and English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era


nolu chan April 28, 2012,[/link]





TABLE OF CONTENTS





002.[link]Table of source material,[/link]





007.[link]The Law of Nations per Kent’s Commentaries,[/link]





011.[link]The Common Law per Kent’s Commentaries,[/link]





013.[link]State by State Review, adoption of law in the Founding Era,[/link]





033.[link]Appendix of Source Material,[/link]





607. End


Perhaps something that could be linked on the Home Page?
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12222
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#2

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Nolu Chan published the following...





[link]Common Law and English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era


nolu chan April 28, 2012,[/link]





TABLE OF CONTENTS





002.[link]Table of source material,[/link]





007.[link]The Law of Nations per Kent’s Commentaries,[/link]





011.[link]The Common Law per Kent’s Commentaries,[/link]





013.[link]State by State Review, adoption of law in the Founding Era,[/link]





033.[link]Appendix of Source Material,[/link]





607. End


Perhaps something that could be linked on the Home Page?607 pages??? And the table of contents alone blows Leo out of the water.





Sure, I can put it up. Or the Boss can.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12222
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#3

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:18 pm

I do not think Nolu means peach. :shock: An act for the more effectual observing of the Queen’s peachs/b peace. Or else it's royal porn.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 23802
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#4

Post by Volkonski » Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:35 pm

From-[/break1]obamaconspiracy.org/2013/03/the-occasional-open-thread-sweet-land-of-liberty-edition/#comment-259631]http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/03/ ... ent-259631"gorefanMarch 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm (Quote)#The coming storm: Over a Mario’s they have found an 1817 legal text – “A Digest of Select British Statutes:” By Samuel Roberts a judge of the Pennsylvania Courts. Page 26 – “The children of aliens, born within the United States are aliens: they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of the parents.” The footnote for this section reads: “In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature.” [/break1]google.com/books?id=8340AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false]http://books.google.com/books?id=8340AQ ... &q&f=false Of course, the argument could be made that he cites no authorities or actual laws, so it is one guys opinion. I don’t think it is particularly surprising that there are conflicting ideas on this. The James McClure article shows that depending on who you asked you could get a different response to what was the law. The fact that he acknowledges that this is a change from the way the English law worked, means that for him to be right there would need to be a clear announcement of the change in the US law. So far that has not been found."
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#5

Post by verbalobe » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:23 pm

If I remember my Coke, "alien" originally reflected "alienage", that is, not being under the jurisdiction. And in this regard, Roberts is perfectly correct.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 23802
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#6

Post by Volkonski » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:24 pm

Roberts' footnote on Page 26 shows that he was what we would now call a "Vattelist"-





"In this particular our laws differ from the English laws but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature. "It is presumed", says Vattel, "that every citizen on entering into society reserves to his children the right of their becoming members. The country of the fathers is that of the children and they become true citizens by their tacit consent." -- "In order to be of the country it is necessary, that a person be born of a Father who is a citizen for if he is born there of a stranger it will only be the place of his birth and not his country." "By the laws of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him." Law of Nations B 1 c XIX.





The English rule upon this subject seems to be irreconcilable with the first principles of the law of nations and when considered in connexion with the doctrine of perpetual allegiance and its consequences, is at variance with the most obvious rights of nature; and the best feelings of the human heart. (note- italics in the original)As the original post on obamaconspiracy.org notes, Roberts cites no reasons for his opinion that in 1817 the Pennsylvania laws on this matter differ from English laws other than the appeal to Vattel and to "the most obvious rights of nature; and the best feelings of the human heart".





In his preface, Roberts does note that while this book represents the opinions of important judges, these opinions do not represent actual judicial decisions.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45045
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#7

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:09 pm

In other words, not meant to be a factual statement.





it was some guy's opinion which was wrong when it was made, and irrelevant after U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#8

Post by TollandRCR » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:46 pm

General Jedi Pauly can add another citation to his ongoing law suit against the judge who dismissed his case and a few others. However, he may not be willing to acknowledge that somebody had the "sacred sperm" theory before he did.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16971
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#9

Post by Suranis » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:58 pm

I;m reading through the Preface now, and I've found something which should made Mario quake with fear.





page XVI





On the other hand, an opinion delivered from the bench, on a point not judicially before the court, is generally, and always aught to be considered as a mere obiter dictum, which determine nothing; but leaves the point open to argument before the judge who uttered it, and elsewhere.





The dictum is simply an intimation of the present impression of the judge, upon a point that had not been argued before him, upon a point that had not been argues before him; upon which he was not required to give an opinion; and which, it is not to be presumed, he had particularly investigatedThat pretty much kills the whole Minor V Happersett shit out of the water, doesn't it.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Common Law & English Statutes Adopted in American Founding Era (with source documents)

#10

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:21 pm

Dicter? I hardly even knew her!

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”