From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:14:04 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Abandonment of legal precedence... (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199712291853.MAA03050@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <199712291910.OAA21797@users.invweb.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <199712291853.MAA03050@einstein.ssz.com>, on 12/29/97 
   at 12:53 PM, Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> said:

>Forwarded message:

>> From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>
>> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 97 11:51:15 -0600
>> Subject: Re: Abandonment of legal precedence...

>> >The *entire* point of the forming of the United States over 200 years ago
>> >was the specific intent to break with precedence, in particular *English*
>> >precedence, and find a new way.
>> 
>> Well that may sound nice and give you all kinds of warm fuzzies the fact
>> of the matter is English Common Law is the basis of the Judicial System in
>> America as it was before the break with England.
>> 
>> While the revolution changed the political form of government it did
>> little to change the judical system. Murder was still murder, theift was
>> still theift, contracts were still valid before and after the war.

>So your premise is that the changes that were implimented at the time of
>the Constitution were all the changes that the founding fathers had in
>mind? You hold that while it is clear that the founding fathers
>recognized that the quantity of change required was such that they would
>not be able to impliment it realisticaly since nobody would accept that
>range of change at one time? You further hold that the Constitution is
>not a document that holds an ideal of freedom for us which will require
>generations of striving? You seriously expect to get up one morning and
>find that no new laws will be needed and that we have solved all the
>issues respecting human interaction? You further hold that with 200+
>years of English jurisprudence behind us we have actualy attained that
>nirvana?

I don't know what you are smoking but I said nothing of the sort. You
implied that the break with England was for the purposes of overturning
the entire legal system and that English Common Law has no significance on
the current American legal system. I challenged this as it flies in the
face of fact and reality showing your complete ignorance of law and legal
history.

>In short, you would have us take it all - the good and the bad - and
>ignore our right to pick and choose what works for us?

>If we accept your view, blacks would still be slaves and women would
>still not be able to vote, and men couldn't vote unless they were landed.

Please, this is all irrelevant to the issue at hand. All legal systems
evolve, English Law of today is not word for word the same as it was 200
years ago this is not to say that it's foundations are not built upon it. 

>Do me a favor, please don't try to lick my hand.

You seem to have your anatomy wrong, if anything it would be my foot and
your ass sir.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNKf0W49Co1n+aLhhAQG1DQP+PxJJZ/owqnUmPUU5/qD6qWw1vm+KKMAh
c45EQe83UhqkojDzLuwp2fXegPsMzn1hmtt3vlTSXrGiOmxg0e54tLbSaYWoNKoz
XMOLjJ0SKRIftXplV2Pa7yYOlHlGPPKprNZ1zZ+5fEZwoho9WYbtfP8m5xyKb6sg
9bKEpULKVc4=
=cfOM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----