On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>Of course it's British history would indicate it was really used by the
>rich to punish those less fortunate but verbally active. Aren't laws in
>the US supposed to answer to the Constitution and not British legal
>precedence?
I know you're not going to like this, Jim, but cases that were
tried in Rome a couple thousand years ago are still considered
as part of the body of precedent. You thought there was no
reason why lawyers learned Latin?
The line of precedent runs back across the 230-odd years of
America, hits a speed-bump at the constitution, goes back to
several centuries of British cases (French cases if you happen
to live in Louisiana), hits another speed bump at the magna
carta, and then cruises further back from there into Italian
courts, from there into Roman courts, and even in a few cases
goes back further than that to the old Greek courts. It's
all in there, dude. The history of our particular branch of
civilization in microcosm.
Bear
