“Discussion” on common law.
Related Posts
10-01-10 Rule of Law
Guest Dawn Kennedy, law student, discusses "FIRAC: An ELEMENTary Approach to Legal Reasoning". Dawn...09-16-10 Rule of Law
Hour 1 guest Stephen Rogers of Shentrition discusses Codex Alimentarius. Hour 2 hosts take calls. RO...
Eddie presents research on the nine constitutions of Texas throughout the centuries. He notes that at one time the constitution stated that the Texas would be bound by the Common Law of England (like the original 13 States) but that the current version of the constitution makes no mention of this fact. Nor can Eddie find where the Common Law of England provision was repealed. Randy counters with strong rationale. Deborah sides with Eddie, citing the God-given rights of the individual as superior to the subservient government.
Darrell (TX) asks [at 0hr45m30s] where we got our vested rights and what the goal/purpose of ROL radio is. Randy answers that ROL wants to purpose remedies.
Michael (MD) [at 1hr09m20s] has been researching the Maryland Constitution (per Eddie’s research of the Texas Constitution) and asks about the Article I phrases “compact only” and “solely for the good of the whole”. Eddie responds that the compact refers to the constitution and the latter phrase does not refer to collectivism but rather to everyone. [Note: This is an important distinction. Collectivism always involves stealing from the masses and giving to special interests. American law is based on “general welfare”, that is, the welfare (i.e., well being) of the general population (i.e., everyone). As Dr Graves says: Equal rights for all and special privileges for no one.]
Eddie recounts that English Common Law was pressed upon King John to protect the rights of the people. [Note: King John was clearly a tyrant. Even the nobles got sick of him. (They were mostly concerned with their own rights, not so much those of the common Englishman.) On the fields of Runnymeade in 1215, John was ordered to sign the Magna Carta (Latin for “The Great Charter”) or suffer the consequences. Successive kings signed off on the Magna Carta in its various forms over the centuries, despite the objections of the Church. (Contrary to popular myth, there is no one Magna Carta. One belonging to Ross Perot hangs in the Department of Public Archives in D.C.) John’s remaining days were unpleasant. He lived on the run, finally dying on October 19, 1216 after 9 days of dysentery following another night of gluttony.]
A hellacious donnybrook ensues amongst our fun-loving hosts. Randy presents strong counter-arguments to Eddie’s premises. He notes that the Common Law is merely the state of stare decisis, which he describes as Rule by Judges (at their whim): he invokes the sorry state of affairs in Minnesota (approved by the Minnesota Legislature) as an example. Eddie and Deborah disagree. [Stare decisis: “To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases.” (Black’s Law Dictionary)] Deborah points the 800-year history of consistent English Common Law. Fun listening.
Tony (IL) suggests [at 1hr26m] influencing Tom Woods [see his interview on the ROL show dated 20100723, first hour] to plug ROL and the Jurisdictionary show on libertarian ex-judge Andrew Napolitano’s FOX television show. Tony also suggests working with the Texas Department of Education to introduce Jurisdictionary-type studies into the public school curriculum. Deborah says ‘fat chance’. Tony also suggests [at 1hr57m] reading Blackstone’s Commentaries (1760s) as the authority on the Common Law. Eddie concurs.
Law student Sten (TX) talks [at 1hr32m20s] about his studies of the Common Law, but how it is dismissed in his law school. He also presents interests thoughts on positive law, as well as the concept that the Uniform Commercial Code is private law.
HOUR 1 & 2
Eddie presents common law. Asks how many constitutions have governed Texas. Answer is nine. Eddie reads article 4, section 13 of 1836 constitution, which says English common law should be basis of Texas laws.
1845 constitution did not have the article 4, section 13 text.
Current constitution, footnote 3, says vested rights are not affected by alterations of constitution. Therefore previous constitution enumeration of rights are still in effect.
When the nation of Texas joined the United States, was the new state constitution created fresh or created from building on previous constitutions?
Statutory revisions being substantive changes or unsubstantive changes.
Laws are owned by the people, so why is the legislature sending law to a publishing house that copyrights the law? Secretary of State no longer certifies new laws, and this requirement was apparently not repealed.
US constitution creates two criminal jurisdictions: admiralty/military, common law. How are states creating third jurisdiction called statutory?
Texas constitution does not grant rights to the people, it restricts government actions. Article 1, section 29.
45:24
Daryl in Texas.
Vested rights are inherent and inalienable from our Creator. Asked what we had when England was in control.
We had the rights, but they were repressed.
Daryl asks where Texas has authority to create agencies.
Agencies can not alter legislation.
What is goal of this radio station?
Deborah says it is to encourage people to use the existing system to force authorities to follow the law. Education of libertarian principles. Read Michael Badnarik’s book Good To Be King. http://www.amazon.com/Good-Be-King-Foundation-Constitutional/dp/1594110964 All rights derive from property rights, not from being part of a group.
Randy says purpose is to offer remedies in the law that people can use. The problem is not the law. The problem is the people wallowing in our fear.
69:13
Michael in Maryland.
Agrees with discussion about statutory authority. Maryland constitution Article 1 says government originates from the people and is founded “in compact only”. Randy says compact is the constitution.
“… and instituted solely for the good of the whole”. What does that expression mean? Randy says “whole” likely means government can only work for benefit and prosperity of all, not for individuals and groups to benefit.
Article 5 mentions common law of England. Does this allow gradual shift in common law to allow pre-emptive laws such as driving laws? Eddie says this is his concern about common law – whatever judges say it is. Randy says common law was set in Magna Carta at that time. Eddie uses example of judges in Minnesota doing whatever they want.
78:33
Deborah says common law has foundation in Magna Carta. Eddie says judge is not at liberty to use common law nor statute law to cause harm to anyone.
85:50
Tony from Illinois
Suggestions for Tom Woods and Judge Napolitano and Dr. Graves.
Mentions Texas Education Agency which is making changes.
Deborah says to listen to archives of Gary Johnson’s show.
92:20
Sten in Texas.
Sten is in law school and describes common law burglary. In school they are told everything is codified in statutes. Asked professor why common law rules are emphasized in law schools but in practice common law is not used.
Pursuant to contract law, who is damaged by speeding? Prosecutors claim state is damaged.
Randy asks how is statutory law anything other than limits on government? Sten says some common law is “positive law” that limits government. Non-positive law is a restriction on the person.
People are only free if they know the law and if they can contract away their rights.
105:25
Dominick.
Common law and Magna Carta.
Deborah says before Magna Carta there was no common law, just law of whatever the kings said.
111:37
Mark in Wisconsin.
Sent waiver of service to attorney who offered $500 to end the TCPA claim against creditor. The attorney claimed no more that $1000 can be awarded for violation, even if their are multiple violations.
Eddie says some letters may not be introduced in court if you state in the letter it is non-discoverable.
Randy says Michael Mirras says to those attorneys, “Let’s see what the jury says”.
Deborah says strategy is to get enough money to cover your costs and to have them agree to permanently retire the debt. TCPA says you can get $1500 each time they call and you answer, if you pay per minute on cell phones and if you have sent validation letter and told them not to call.
116:47
Tony from Illinois.
Suggests Blackstone’s Common Theories on Law.