Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 11:01 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:

>>> Thats
>>>what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts
>>>were extinguished.
>
>>Ah!  So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh?  Well, 
>>if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how 
>>you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished."
>
>I admit no such thing if you could understand logic you would
>realize that. There were pre-existing courts, those of King George.

Misleading.  And wrong.  Wrong, because existing state courts were not 
eliminated.  And misleading, because both "commonlaw" and "equity" courts 
were "those of King George."  At least, the judges were appointed by the 
King.  But the revolution merely meant that George no longer had the 
authority to appoint the judges; it does not mean that the courts were, 
themselves, eliminated as institutions.

>They were extingished. 

"Extinguished"?  Like a fire, or something like that?  You really need to 
start using more exact terminology.  I think you're trying to read a lot 
more into the US Constitution than was written into it.  In order to be able 
to claim that it had an effect, you need to document that effect.  Find the 
particular section which "extinguished" a court.  Moreover, you need to 
explain why you're ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, both of which make 
it clear that there was much continuity not affected by the Federal 
constitution.


>Had common law courts existed (they did not
>but for the sake of arguement I am indulging you in your fantasy) 

When did they not exist? Be very specific; are you referring to just 
America, or Britain as well?


>they would exist no longer.

You haven't documented this claim.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com