From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 19:35:24 -0800 (PST)
To: hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
Message-ID: <199611160335.TAA10530@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:43 AM 11/15/96 -0500, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
>
>Jim appears to be arguing that the "common law" courts heis refering
>to had judges appointed by the King. If so the right to appoint
>judges to those posts passed to the US government under the treaty
>of Paris. 

WRONG!   One of the main principles of the US Constitution is that the 
government has no "rights," per se:  It merely has specific authority 
granted to it by the people and the states of America.  A treaty with a 
defeated monarch did not and could not grant authority to the Federal 
governemnt that it did not already have.

Also, you've screwed up on the timeline:  The Treaty of Paris was signed in 
1783, and the US Constitution was finalized in 1787, four years later.  
Quite simply, the Federal government of the US didn't exist when the Treaty 
was made. No "rights" could be transferred to a non-existent branch of 
government.

I suppose you'll now claim that the "rights" were transferred to the states, 
right?  Well, the states did not have their own Constitutions, either.    
And unless those Constitutions mentioned commonlaw courts, it's pretty 
obvious that the public did not anticipate including those powers in those 
state governments.  It is obvious that King George relinquished that power; 
what you'll be unable to show is that this power flowed to any entity other 
than the people of America, every one of them.


>The Common Law in the UK was the kings law since the Norman conquest.
>It is as any schoolboy knows judge made law. The doctrine of precedent
>has become more and more prominent since the renaisance though, effectively
>preventing judicial lawmaking except in areas where no law is believed
>to exist.
>
>As a system of government I don't think very much of the idea of a 
>bunch of klansmen getting together to decide who they dislike. Sounds
>much more like a lynch mob than a system of government to me. 

For every "bunch of klansmen" getting together, you'll have a few hundred 
bunches of far more reasonable people.  


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com