From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 03-May-14 19:34, Charles Ellson wrote:   
   > On Sat, 03 May 2014 18:35:45 -0500, Larry Sheldon   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 5/3/2014 2:58 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >>> On 03-May-14 09:23, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>>> When SCOTUS unilaterally voided federal general common law   
   >>>>> in 1938, "the peace" went too.  As a (mostly) civil law   
   >>>>> system, their agents are charged with enforcing "the law",   
   >>>>> hence "law enforcement officer".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Huh? I thought common law, as a general concept, was not   
   >>>> incorporated by the Founding Fathers by choice, which is why   
   >>>> specific areas of common law they wished to retain were   
   >>>> enacted into law in the First Congress.   
   >>>   
   >>> How could a legislature "enact" common law?  Common law is what   
   >>> courts create on their own when there is a lack of statute law   
   >>> to follow.   
   >>>   
   >>> In the 1800s and early 1900s, the common law varied depending on   
   >>> the people involved: for citizens of the same state, it was   
   >>> state common law in state court, but for citizens of different   
   >>> states, it was federal common law in federal courts.  In 1938,   
   >>> SCOTUS decided that this was a violation of equal protection and   
   >>> the laws of the state where the case originated (including   
   >>> common law, if applicable) should control in diversity cases just   
   >>> as in non-diversity cases.   
   >>>   
   >>> There are still some instances where federal statute explicitly   
   >>> preempts state law (including common law, if applicable) even in   
   >>> non-diversity cases yet is so vague that the federal courts have   
   >>> no choice but to create common law.  This drives "strict   
   >>> constructionists" nuts, but it's the only practical solution   
   >>> until Congress improves the statute law.   
   >>   
   >> IANAL but to my understanding this is a gross misuse of the term   
   >> "common law".   
   >   
   > Common Law systems don't all develop or work the same way, what seems   
   > to be being addressed WRT the US is unfinished business or anomolies   
   > resulting from the combination of multiple jurisdictions into one   
   > union, not combining the legal systems but complicating it by adding   
   > a federal tier   
      
   Not exactly.  Each state (except Louisiana) inherited common law from   
   England; we even still cite English cases from time to time.  Also like   
   England, they now have substantial statue law too, but it doesn't cover   
   everything--and common law still picks up the slack.   
      
   Until 1938, the federal courts also had their own common law that   
   differed from the states' common law, also inherited from England.   
   Since SCOTUS abolished this in 1938, though, if federal statute law   
   doesn't address a matter, the federal courts generally resort to state   
   statute law or _state_ common law.   
      
   > (which seems in some legal areas to be alongside as well as above the   
   > state systems ?).   
      
   Federal courts/law are superior to state courts/law; however, federal   
   courts only have original jurisdiction in specific matters.  Cases   
   usually get into federal courts via appeal from state courts.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)