do you guys think that after more than 200 years after this country
adopted the english common law, as the law of the nation, it has change
in such a manner that we can't recognize anymore basic ancient
principles from this law?

And????
Whats the problem?

not a problem wahtsoever
just trying to see what people think
why always there must be a problem?
i just want to learn more, and people inputs are a good way to learn

You mean like the distress act of 1267? The oldest law currently in
force is the Distress Act of 1267, part of the Statute of Marlborough,
(52 Hen. 3).

Fanta, be nice

BTW Good morning

exactly, u see the basis of common law is precedent, but what happen is
that courts interpret laws and they change it on a daily basis, so my
basic question if we have anything left from the first day USA adopted
the english common law.

thank you ANdrea
but for me this kind of responses are just hilarious
I love u sister

Interesting topic. I found this. For example, there is no statute making
murder illegal. It is a common law crime.

I found this
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-6218
I know you guys are not going to read the whole case, but what it says
basically is that this guy was on appeal because there is YEAR AND A DAY
RULE (english common law principle) that says that the person must be
convicted of murder unless his/her victim died within a year and a day
after the attack
But the tennessee court abolished that rule, so the guy went to jail
anyway.

I just didnt understand the question.
Wasnt trying to be mean.

We can think of common law (or any other law 'code) in several different
ways.

1. It can be seen as a set of principles and processes that are then
acted on to produce the substance of the rules that govern human
behavior and provide for dealing with transgression.

Examples in common law of these principles and processes are: innocence
until proven guilty, habeas corpus, right to competent defense, public
accusation and public defense, stare decisis (use of precedent), etc.

2. It can be viewed as the rules themselves. Examples are: illegality of
theft, kidnapping etc.; enforceability of contracts; rules of
inheritAnce, etc.

As time goes by, all societies have to upgrade their rules, to reflect
new values, or to address problems that are the result of modern
developments, e.g. technology.

To get to Miguel's excellent questions:

Common Law has stood the test of time pretty well. It provides, in my
opinion, a flexible, pragmatic and sufficiently principled approach to
life and its conflicts. It offers a ground-up evolution of the rules of
society. It does depend on the wisdom of judges to interpret the legal
issues involved in new types of conflict, and to decide which common law
rules and precedents will guide their resolution. As long as our judges
are selected with a primary view to their legal and intellectual
capabilities, the common law system for enforcing laws and creating new
ones as needed works pretty well.

It is not a perfect situation -- far from it, and it is not hard to list
instances in which it has failed.

But the alternative, say, is a 'Napoleonic code' approach, where laws
are designed from the top down, and where it is assumed that legal
experts can design in advance a corpus of laws that can control the full
complexity of the human experience.

This is, of course, enormously hard to do, and when it is tried the
legal creationists inevitably try to simplify their impossible task by
issuing broad prohibitions, and in the end asserting that 'that which is
not explicitly allowed is prohibited.'

The common law approach arrives at a much different general formulation:
'that which is not explicitly prohibited, is allowed.'

In my opinion, then, the common law approach provides individuals with
greater freedom of decision-making and action.

The 'Napoleonic code' approach provides for greater social and
behavioral conformity.

Societies can choose whichever approach and whatever benefits they
prefer: the choice is pretty clear.

And then to come to Miguel's last question: IMO, the nature of this
choice hasn't changed much over the centuries.

You'd better get an "A", bro!



Oceans

I agree with Oceans (who doesn't, lol). If you look at the "common
laws" as the headers of an outline and the cases of each header as the
points of interest, I think one can see that the basic outline is still
in tact. However, that is about the only commonality that remains to
this day, but remain they do, and it's been a good foundation from which
to start and refer and begin again.

Such is the evolutionary pattern of laws and precedent.

its too early in the day for my brain to digest this stuff. i'll come
back at 4. lol

is 4 pm going to be late enough?
what about around 11:59 pm?

Oceans you should apply to lecture some of our classes at the community
college I attend
I think we all will benefit a lot of ur science.

Thanks for the compliment, Walker

Oceans

I think this is where we have lost all sense of justice, the common law system has been eroded or overthrown for this statutory BS system(lawyer system)(esquires)Actually we might be operating under martial law, law of the sea maybe, and not under common law( law of the land) Some times ,I am not sure there is any law any where left, But then we are operating under U. C. C. ( uniform commercial code) But when you boil it all down, that is why they keep making all these laws, it is contradictory on purpose, lawyer paradise. You do not need lawyers under common law, it is simple straight forward, no BS. justice for all. When we get rid of this statutory B S system and go back to the Constitution, and the common law system, Things will straighten out. Under common law there is no crime unless there is a victim ,injured or libel. whereas now they put people in jail for all kinds of make believe, and supposed, offenses, when there is no victim. (crazy) How about seat belts, helmets, the list is endless ,it seems! Keep the federal out of stuff they don't belong in, they keep horning into every where they do not belong. They should go back to trying to correct the money system, take it away from the federal reserve ,which is not federal at all, just criminal. The federal reserve is PRIVATE, not federal, only the name is federal , it is a fraud on the human race, they are stealing your houses and everything you own. This was done by design: How could the federal reserve act be passed by about 3 men ,during Christmas vacation, while Congress was out of session??And where is you 13 th Amendment to the Constitution, it was passed, it has never been repealed, So what is going on here? It basically means, for one thing ,that no lawyers can hold public office, or no one that has been knighted by the Queen, like SIR George Bush, and others, and no dual citizenship people in govt, etc. Which reminds me: Who is Henry Kissinger, could he be aka Heinz STERN ?? Is HE still RUNNING EVERYTHING??? Is he a Soviet agent?? Does he have a dual citizenship?? Them are some good questions , we need good answers to!!!