Re: Need help and advice with a COURT hearing


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by WAR POWERS on October 29, 1998 at 12:08:04:

In Reply to: Re: Need help and advice with a COURT hearing posted by Tom on October 26, 1998 at 01:52:36:

U.S.C. TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE ,CHAPTER 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

1541. Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Key phrase:the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


What about the an attack upon a "State"?

Are there really any "States" today in the context of International law?

There is only one "State"; The "United States" which is a United Nations member State.

: Read, Reason + Compare with reality and the present system of government with other systems of law.

: Read about; The Law of War, the law of Nations, International law, all of which are Roman based law.

: I believe the Common Law with its case law was very corruptable.

: There is no case law today in America. The Fed.s never had any case law although they try to make you think so. The States before the Civil War appeared to have had case law but not todays States.

: The above should tell you that Our system of law is not based on the English common law.

: Here is a link to; The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School : Documents in Law, History and Government.

: Church + State were combined in many countrys of Europe. Check out pre 18th century documents at The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School.

: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm

: Listen to the Tax scams of the Snakeoilers and you will get you sent to the Wolves. (TAXCOURT)

: I have heard that IRS Agents collect a commission on money that they collect.

: Maybe the Snakeoilers are IRS AGENTS???

: They sure will not answer or dodge many questions.

: Getting in trouble only hurts yourself and your family.

: If you go to COURT with your defense based on "The Constitution and case law" and the JUDGE puts a gag order on you or sends you to jail; does this mean that the JUDGE is a crook? What it really means is that "The Constitution" and case law are not law in this COURT.

: Somebody is lying to us: Here is an example from The World Book Encyclopedia!

: Use reason + logic to figure out which system of law that America is under based on; "there is no case law (common law)."

:

Systems of law


: Every independent country has its own legal system. The systems vary according to each country's social traditions and form of government. But most systems can be classed as either (1) a common-law system or (2) a civil-law system. The United States, Canada, Great Britain, and other English-speaking countries have a common-law system. Most other countries have a civil-law system. Many countries combine features of both systems.


: Common-law systems are based largely on case law--that is, on court decisions. The common-law system began in England many hundreds of years ago. The English called their system the common law because it applied throughout the land.


: English common law developed from the rules and principles that judges traditionally followed in deciding court cases. Judges based their decisions on legal precedents--that is, on earlier court rulings in similar cases. But judges could expand precedents to make them suit particular cases. They could also overrule (reject) any precedents that they considered to be in error or outdated. In this way, judges changed many laws over the years. The common law thus came to be law made by judges.


: However, some common-law principles proved too precious to change. For example, a long line of hard-won precedents defended the rights and liberties of citizens against the unjust use of government power. England--and the other common-law countries--have kept these principles almost unchanged. The United States, Canada, and other countries that were colonized by England based their national legal systems on the common law. In addition, every state in the United States except Louisiana and every Canadian province except Quebec adopted a common-law system. Louisiana and Quebec were colonized by France, rather than England, and their legal systems are patterned after the French civil-law system.


: Case law is still important in common-law countries. However, the lawmaking role of legislatures in these countries has increased greatly during the 1900's. For example, the United States Congress has made major changes in American contract and property law. The changes have dealt, for example, with such matters as labor-management relations, workers' wages and hours, health, safety, and environmental protection. Nevertheless, common-law countries have kept the basic feature of the English legal system, which is the power of judges to make laws. In addition, constitutional law in these countries continues the common-law tradition of defending the people's rights and liberties.


: Civil-law systems are based mainly on statutes (legislative acts). The majority of civil-law countries have assembled their statutes into one or more carefully organized collections called codes.


: Most modern law codes can be traced back to the famous code that was commissioned by the Roman Emperor Justinian I in the A.D. 500's. Justinian's code updated and summarized the whole of Roman law. It was called the Corpus Juris Civilis, meaning Body of Civil Law. For this reason, legal systems that are based on the Roman system of statute and code law are known as civil-law systems. This use of the term civil law should not be confused with its use as an alternate term for private law. Civil-law systems include both private law and public law.


: In civil-law countries, which include France and Mexico, the statutes, rather than the courts, provide the final answer to any question of law. Judges may refer to precedents in making their decisions. But they must base every decision on a particular statute and not on precedent alone.


: Other systems. Many countries have patterned their legal system after both civil law and common law. For example, Japan and most Latin-American nations have assembled all their private law into a code. But public law in these countries has been greatly influenced by common-law principles, especially those that guarantee the rights and liberties of the people.(The world Book Encyclopedia)

: ===================================================

: More clues!

: "The Constitution of the United States, while retaining other Roman principles of public law, departed Rome altogether in separating Church from State." Philip P. Wiener, ed., Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), vol. 3, p. 690.


: "History of Military Law. Military law and its civilian counterpart both have their roots in Roman law which came into existence about the first century B.C. The Roman law permeated western Europe during the first millennium A.D., and was then codified in Lombardy in the 11th century as the Libri Feudorum.


: "The Roman law made no distinction between civilian and military systems of law since it was predicated upon a military society in which a state of war was the normal condition. However, after the Roman law was brought to England in 1066 by William the Conqueror, the need for a separate system applying to members of the Army and Navy began to manifest itself.


: A Constable's Court had existed in England during medieval times separate and apart from other courts of law. When William made the Constable the commander of the royal Army, the Constable's Court was given jurisdiction over military crimes." Fundamentals of Military Law, ROTCM 145-85, Department of the Army, February 1973, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

: Do not base your actions on a false premise of the system of law that we are under.

: If you still think "case law is the law" go to this page: http://www.ltgcomm.com/Precedents_Policy.htm





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]