From: hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:38:32 -0800 (PST)
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
In-Reply-To: <199611150549.VAA18649@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <9611150643.AA01829@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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. 

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. 

Since Browne couldn't even manage fourth place, despite the attentions
of the net it doesn't look as if the US people are particularly 
inclined to the libertarian view. Nader managed a vote about 20%
higher despite only running in a handful of states while Browne was
on the ballot in every state. Contrary to Bellsclaim that the state
is being challenged by libertarian and millitia ideas it looks to
me that the tide is flowing in the opposite direction if its flowing
at all.

	Phill