Main Menu

21 Responses to Common Law in South Carolina

  1. avatar
    Ballantine April 3, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    And in its 1776 constitution, all previous english law, including the common law, was adopted by south carolina:

    “That the resolutions of this or any former congress of this colony, and all laws now of force here, (and not hereby altered,) shall so continue until altered or repealed by the legislature of this colony, unless where they are temporary, in which case they shall expire at the times respectively limited for their duration.”

    http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/sc-1776.htm

  2. avatar
    Scott Brown April 3, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    An excellent case for why the Supremes should hear arguments and hand down a ruling.

  3. avatar
    nBC April 3, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    They already have in Wong Kim Ark, you silly…

  4. avatar
    BatGuano April 3, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    i predict diana ross will cast the deciding vote.

  5. avatar
    Benji Franklin April 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    Dear Scott,

    The Supremes have already heard the arguments, studied the History, and issued their opinion by their inaction.

    It’s been in their laps more than once and in the news; they could have sua sponte issued an opinion if they thought their was great danger and a dire need anytime – before the election, before the electoral college met, before Congress certified the vote, before the swearing in, during the first sentence of the swearing in, during the second sentence of the swearing in, or on any one of the 400 plus days of Obama’s PERFECTLY LEGAL Presidency, if your tantrum had God’s ear.

    That’s why so many birthers claim the Supremes ARE ALREADY TREASONOUS TRAITORS to the Constitution – precisely because the Obama Presidency continues with the Supreme’s tacit blessing ALREADY!

    Besides, because most birthers claim that if the Supreme Court opined in such a way as to confirm that Obama is a Presidency-eligible Natural Born Citizen, they (the birthers) would not accept that opinion, would claim it was incorrect, and still refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Obama’s Presidency, “frivolous” is a generous term to apply. Ironically, it is birthers who through their incomplete readings of history, seek to bend the Constitution to purposes unintended by the Framers.

    Every birther seems to claim the personal right to assert the correctness of their own interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen” and demand that their own personal standard and method of “proof” that THEIR INTERPRETATION has been satisfied, be accepted as THE FIRST STEP in continuing to claim that the President is Constitutionally ineligible on some other basis, no matter what the “test’s” outcome.

    A thousand birthers stand in line each holding another hoop the President “must” jump through. No system of justice could OR SHOULD accommodate such frivolous abuse. Birthers seek to join the Klan in becoming the most dangerous fringe threat to the Constitution in the history of our republic. The courts’ failure to grant these politically and racially motivated cases standing is not an insult to your pretended concern about upholding the Constitution; it is an announcement that the judiciary in this country will not be paralyzed by countenancing the collective hypocritical post-election tantrum of anarchists pretending to be patriots.

    Your refusal to acknowledge their “decision” confirms its wisdom.

    Benji Franklin

  6. avatar
    aarrgghh April 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    scott brown, who missed the bus:

    “An excellent case for why the Supremes should hear arguments and hand down a ruling”

    the supremes have heard the arguments and issued their ruling already.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    This a very important point because at our country’s beginning it was states who defined citizenship, and here we see that South Carolina (whose Constitution did not define citizenship) thereby relied on the English common law for that definition.

  8. avatar
    misha April 3, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    My dear Scott Brown: I believe Obama should ignore people like you. In fact, I believe people like you should squirm in misery. There are less than 30% of voters who feel like you, and acknowledging them gives them legitimacy.

    It did not affect Obama’s election, and it will not affect his re-election. And Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

    I can’t wait to see the reasons this crowd invents why Booker cannot be president. My money’s on ‘he was born in DC, which is not a state.’ Same for Gore, but he’s white.

  9. avatar
    chufho April 3, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    grasping arent ya , you have this uncanny ability to not be objective, living your life on preconceived notions shows a simpleton not willing to learn. stop and think for a minute you are only confirming what other idiots think.but maybe thats what turns you on leading these idiots off on a wild goose chase. think for yourself, think for yourself.
    WHY was this country founded
    it was not founded to be diluded as you claim
    pure from the start and to remain pure not second guessing to get you own way . idiots are easily swayed i got your number now.remember try if you can .

  10. avatar
    Kathryn N April 3, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    Does anyone remember the famous “Stop in the name of love” decision?

  11. avatar
    nbc April 3, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    Chufho, nice projecting…

    It’s tough to really refute the good Dr’s assertions isn’t it.

    Admit it, you’re severely outclassed by his with, his intelligence, and his knowledge.

  12. avatar
    aarrgghh April 4, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    chufho, sputtering uncanny irony:

    “grmblfgzp … you have this uncanny ability to not be objective … snssrmfgh”

    help me out, my loquacious friend … have you ever brought with you a single objective fact in all the time you’ve spent on this site?

  13. avatar
    misha April 4, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    “Does anyone remember the famous “Stop in the name of love” decision?”

    Ah, yesss…I remember it well. (use a WC Fields voice when reading.)

    Speaking of Fields, there is a marker for him, near where I live. Ah, yesss…this is where he once worked. Gin, anyone?

  14. avatar
    US Citizen April 4, 2010 at 3:32 am #

    Think for myself? About purity?
    Ok. I considered the Statue of Liberty.
    Why on Earth would a bronze plaque be inside it that says “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp! Give me your tired, your poor,
    your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

  15. avatar
    Arthur April 4, 2010 at 3:54 am #

    chufho:

    I suddenly see the light! Never before have I witnessed such a rhetorical flourish! Using just over one-hundred words, you proved your point by using a highly effective ad hominen attack. To this you added a convincing series of grammatical errors, misspellings, and mis-punctuations. Your masterful use of both incomplete and run-on sentences was particularly impressive. Yes, chufho, you’ve convinced me and I have your number; so far it’s 0 to 66. You should be so proud!

  16. avatar
    Lupin April 4, 2010 at 5:21 am #

    “WHY was this country founded
    it was not founded to be diluded as you claim”

    Do you mean “diluted” or “deluded”?

    Not that it matters; both are cretinous statements, ignorant of history.

  17. avatar
    Lupin April 4, 2010 at 5:24 am #

    Funny, I could have sworn the guy administering the oath looked like a “Supreme”.

    Unless you meant that “Supreme”:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_%28comics%29

  18. avatar
    Ballantine April 4, 2010 at 7:31 am #

    This a very important point because at our country’s beginning it was states who defined citizenship, and here we see that South Carolina (whose Constitution did not define citizenship) thereby relied on the English common law for that definition.

    The common law was in place in every state and no alteration was made to citizenship in the founding era except for Virginia which provided for both birthright citizenship and citizenship by descent and whose early case law follows the common law rules that were adopted in 1776. you are correct that the majority view in the early rebpublic was that citizens of the states were citizens of the United States. Congress had the power to naturalize foeeigners, but no power to define native citizenship.

    “But though the great body of the common law consists of a collection of principles, to be found in the opinions of sages or deduced from universal and immemorial usage, and receiving progressively the sanction of the courts, it is, nevertheless, true, that the common law, so far as it is applicable to our situation and government, has been recognized and adopted, as one entire system, by the constitutions of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. It has been assumed by the courts of justice, or declared by statute, with the like modifications, as the law of the land in every state.”

    [footnote] Statutes of Pennsylvania, 1718, 1777 ; Laws of Vermont, c. 6, p. 57 ; Statute of North Carolina, 1778, c. 5 ; Revised Statutes of North Carolina, 1887, i. 110; State v. Rollins, S N. H. 550; Statute of South Carolina, 1712 ; Parsons, C. J., in Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 534 ; Story, In Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 333 ; State v. Buchanan, 5 Harr. & Johns. 355, 356 ; McLearn v. McLellan, 10 Peters, 631, 635. The constitution of New York, of 1777, declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, as, together with the acts of the colonial legislature, formed the law of the colony on the 19th of April, 1775, should continue to be the law of the state, subject, &c. So the common law and statute law of England were referred to in Missouri by the statute of 14th January, 1816, as part of the known and existing law of the territory, so far as the same was consistent with the law of the territory, and which, in a modified degree, was the Spanish law. The common and statute law of England, prior to the fourth year of James I., and of a general nature, were adopted by the convention of Virginia, in 1776, and in 1795 and 1805, by the government of Ohio ; and such is the substance of the statute law of Arkansas. 2 Ark. 206. But the Ohio statute was repealed in 1806. In the Revised Statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, it was declared that the common law of England, and the English statutes of a general nature made in aid of it, prior to the fourth year of James I., with the exception of those concerning also the established doctrine, that English statutes, passed before the emigration of our ancestors, and applicable to our situation, and in amendment of the law, constitute a part of the common law of this country, were to be rules of decision until repealed. In 1818, the common law was adopted by statute in the State of Indiana, and in 1835, in Missouri, under the same limitations ; and it is understood that the common law and the statute law of England, down to the year 1776, and applicable to their constitution and circumstances, are the law in the states of Mississippi and Georgia. In the latter state the same was declared to be in force by the statute of February 25, 1784. So the common law of England and the statute law of England, prior to 1760, were adopted by statute in Vermont, so far as they were not repugnant to the constitution or statute law of the state.

    James Kent, John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on American Law, vol. I, pg. 643-44 (1901)

  19. avatar
    PaulG April 4, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    Pure from the start? That must be why there were 13 colonies, all identical. Seriously, do you know any history of the US prior to the revolution?

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Stake, heart, Mario’s argument.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    chufho: WHY was this country founded[? I]t was not founded to be diluded [diluted?] as you claim[, but to be] pure from the start and to remain pure…

    By “pure”, do you mean racially pure or ethnically pure? Would you share exactly what kind of a xenophobe you are?