mostpost
07-11-2016, 03:00 PM
There have been a number of postings here lately expressing outrage at Ruth Bader Ginsburg for suggesting that foreign law or foreign court decisions should be taken into account in deciding cases before U.S. Courts. This outrage ignores the fact that much of our Constitution is based on English common law and other foreign sources. The purpose of this thread will be to discuss these origins.
We begin with the first amendment.
Congress shall make to law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
In 1758, thirty years before out Constitution was ratified, Blackstone said, "in laying NO previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. EVERY FREEMAN has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; . . . but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.
That is, he will be held accountable, by criminal proceeding or in civil action for damages, should he slander or libel another. And his oral and written speech is subject to restriction by the police power for the protection of the moral health of the community. Nor is he free to advocate the overthrow of civil order." . .
In 1771, following the publication of imperfect reports of the debates in Parliament, the sessions of which were then in secret, the House of Commons issued a proclamation forbidding the publication of debates. A printer who disobeyed and who ignored a summons to appear at the bar of the House was arrested by its messenger. The magistrate of London released him on the ground that the proclamation was without legal force. Then the House sent the lord mayor of the city to the Tower, but the crowds that followed him showed the Parliament that public opinion was against it. Further attempt to prevent reports was not made. "The first English Journals," says Green ("The English People", Vol. 5, sec. 1504), "date from this time."
The first amendment also states:
Congress shall make no law abridging....the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
This right already existed in customary law. In the colonial Declaration of Rights of October 19, 1765, it was said "that it is the right of British subjects in these Colonies to petition the King or either House of Parliament";
It also existed in English law and tradition.
n the Declaration of Rights submitted by Parliament to William III and Mary (1689) and accepted by them, it was said that the right to petition the King existed and that the prosecution of petitioners which had taken place was illegal. It was considered so valuable by our forefathers that it was protected by this express provision. Assemblies for the discussion of their rights and petitions for the correction of their wrongs had been repeatedly employed by the colonists.
These are not rights that rose up unbidden after the Revolutionary War. They existed in other countries at the time-though not many. They existed as long ago as Greece in the 5th Century BC and during the Romn republic.
We begin with the first amendment.
Congress shall make to law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
In 1758, thirty years before out Constitution was ratified, Blackstone said, "in laying NO previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. EVERY FREEMAN has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; . . . but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.
That is, he will be held accountable, by criminal proceeding or in civil action for damages, should he slander or libel another. And his oral and written speech is subject to restriction by the police power for the protection of the moral health of the community. Nor is he free to advocate the overthrow of civil order." . .
In 1771, following the publication of imperfect reports of the debates in Parliament, the sessions of which were then in secret, the House of Commons issued a proclamation forbidding the publication of debates. A printer who disobeyed and who ignored a summons to appear at the bar of the House was arrested by its messenger. The magistrate of London released him on the ground that the proclamation was without legal force. Then the House sent the lord mayor of the city to the Tower, but the crowds that followed him showed the Parliament that public opinion was against it. Further attempt to prevent reports was not made. "The first English Journals," says Green ("The English People", Vol. 5, sec. 1504), "date from this time."
The first amendment also states:
Congress shall make no law abridging....the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
This right already existed in customary law. In the colonial Declaration of Rights of October 19, 1765, it was said "that it is the right of British subjects in these Colonies to petition the King or either House of Parliament";
It also existed in English law and tradition.
n the Declaration of Rights submitted by Parliament to William III and Mary (1689) and accepted by them, it was said that the right to petition the King existed and that the prosecution of petitioners which had taken place was illegal. It was considered so valuable by our forefathers that it was protected by this express provision. Assemblies for the discussion of their rights and petitions for the correction of their wrongs had been repeatedly employed by the colonists.
These are not rights that rose up unbidden after the Revolutionary War. They existed in other countries at the time-though not many. They existed as long ago as Greece in the 5th Century BC and during the Romn republic.