Further, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. read the 14th Amendment, again, carefully.

*shrug* I'm not going to recognize the terms you claim are there, since I don't know what you think they mean. Nothing would be easier for you to explain by giving an example -- if in fact the words have meaning.

Anybody can string together a bunch of legal and Latin words and claim that they have legal meaning and are discussed in the Constitution. If you can't define what they mean, it's not worth a hill of beans.

Stop beating around the bush. Define your terms.

(Giving a concrete example).

U.S. Const. art. I, § 10 states, in part,"No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." A contract is "private law." "Public laws" or "positive laws" limit the government. The only time that public municipal law was used actively for private purposes was when a private right was violated and the public municipal law is used in the court to address the wrong and correct it. However, private law merchant, that derived from Roman civil law, the law of compelled performance, and implied contracts, came to control our Republic.

People trying to make sense of what the heck MichiganMan is talking about may want to look at the following book/excerpt (make sure to read on to the next page):

http://books.google.com/books?id=SIKtlBZYhi0C&lpg=PT56&dq=public%20municipal%20law%20for%20private%20purposes%20operating%20in%20personam.&pg=PT52#v=onepage&q&f=false

Frankly, I'm a little frightened.

Anyway, I stand by my claim that this is nonsense of the highest order.

OK, so you're saying that contract law is private law, and that US contract law is deriveable from the Romans?

I still don't think I understand what youmean about public law being used in the court to address the wrong. Please give a concrete example.

(By a "concrete example," I mean something like, "Suppose Henry owned a house, and the government did blah blah...")

Thank you.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 10 gave the People the right to contract their rights away, and we did, unfortunately. We operate under a system of private commercial law, and there are a myriad of examples of this -- take a look at the Texas Transportation Code.

Well, I'm pretty much giving up on your giving concrete examples. You're just going to keep waving toward vast bodies of law and insisting that it's all very clear.

Anyway, you apparently think that attorneys are only allowed to practice contract law. Of course, you're wrong. Attorneys can sue under the auspices of all manner of public laws having nothing to do with contracts, and they can also work in the criminal law system, which rarely has anything to do with contracts. Public laws, as well as private contracts, are enforced via the courts in which attorneys practice.

That pretty much wraps it up for me I guess. To the interested reader -- do be sure to check my link to Google books, above, and also, I'll just note that MichiganMan never did respond to my point about property taxes in the early colonies (and states), contra his assertion that allodial title was key to our early republic.

You're frighten because you're a coward. But that aside. Say you are given a speeding ticket...nothing dramatic...10 over the posted speed limit. Who is the plaintiff? The city, right? Are they damaged? Well then why are they able to force you to pay them? Because you signed a contract with them when you signed up for a driver's license. Did you know that a "driver's license" is a commercial license? That it is only required for "persons engaged in commerce?" Are you engaging in commerce when you travel down the road? There is a concrete example. There is no damaged party, the city/state has a claim against you because you violated the contract you signed with them, i.e., private law.

Again, my fright was rhetorical, but as you say, we'll leave that aside. Others can judge.

Thank you for the concrete example. However, you are incorrect about the speeding ticket. If I don't pay the speeding ticket, I am actually violating a specific *criminal* statute, not just a contract. (That's also what I am doing when I speed in the first place). In fact, the whole thing happens in criminal court (it's a misdemeanor in most states).

So it is quite a different scenario from a private contract, which would be a civil action with civil-court consequences. This is a violation of public, not private law.

Wow. That's a hell of a Google book link. You may not seriously be questioning MichiganMan's sanity semck83, but I sure am. Either he's crazy or trolling.

Here's a link of my own.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw

Invictus,

got to go to bed...lots of announcements tomorrow, should be an interesting trading day. I am not crazy...just enjoy having a bit of fun with my legal eagle friends.

also, what is "sanity?"

So trolling.

Just be careful whom you call crazy. It's a fine line...a slippery slope...truth is stranger than...or something like that. :)

Nice article, Invictus, although it's plainly extremely erroneous itself, in places. For example, it says,

"Other examples include individuals such as Jay Sekulow of the American Center of Law and Justice, which is essentially a giant anti-ACLU crank organization. [20] Sekulow files amicus curiae briefs on cases other people have brought up, then pretends on his daily radio show that he is an integral part of all of these cases. He then starts begging for money; he has essentially made a living pretending to be a lawyer and hating the ACLU.

"Neither Sekulow nor Schlafly have participated in a meaningful way in the legal system."

While several of its accusations against Sekulow are true, it's also true that he's personally argued 11 Supreme Court cases, including giants such as McConnell v. FEC, Lamb's Chapel, and Pleasant Grove v. Summum.

"You may not seriously be questioning MichiganMan's sanity semck83, but I sure am. Either he's crazy or trolling."

In fairness, I posted the link to the book, not he. It does appear that these ideas may have come from that book, but we can't know that.

I never read that book you posted, so what I am talking about didn't "come from that book."

Hey, I'd never vouch for the complete accuracy of a wiki article. Especially from one with an agenda. Just wanted to get the concept of pseudolaw out there, which is fascinating in an outre way.

I knew you posted the link and meant it as a compliment. I had no idea people believed this kind of nonsense.

Agreed, Invictus.

"I knew you posted the link and meant it as a compliment. I had no idea people believed this kind of nonsense."

It is quite amazing. I particularly like the part about the Supreme Court building having two stories. (It actually has five, but of course only one courtroom).

I've read that bit about the SC having two different chambers, how they abandoned the one after the law changed. Sounds silly to me, but then, I've read a lot of silly things. Truth is stranger than fiction, as they say.

In response to Invictus and his seemingly obsessive desire to label me, and cram me into a box by defining my thoughts as "crazy" or "insane," what is life for if not to push boundaries? Why bother simply reading the same old party line in some intellectual circle-jerk in which your beliefs are simply reaffirmed by author after author? I want to hear what they're saying over there, WAY over there on the fringe. I want to know what those people think, and why they think it. I want to see what they're seeing, because despite my beliefs, there may very well be a kernel or truth in what they espouse. When you shut yourself off to them, when you claim their "crazy" and refuse to even entertain their ideas, you are missing out, if only on some great entertainment. By studying these fringe things, by reading them and thinking about them, you come to understand your OWN views much better. Sometimes they change, but more times than not, they're strengthened. Either way, I try not to judge the information, only absorb. I've studied and practiced a great many eastern religions/philosophies...and I can tell you from experience that it takes practice to remove judgement from your life. But, when you do, you'll find that an amazing array of wild and wonderful experiences and information come flooding at you. As I said, you don't have to assimilate everything, but your existence becomes richer and more rounded. I meet so many people who are so rigid and judgmental of others. They flat out refuse to even discuss or contemplate anything but their dogmatic view. Why? Are you afraid that you could be wrong? I LOVE finding out I am wrong. Nothing make me happier than to find out something I believe in isn't true. You should try it sometime...it's very liberating.

"I've read that bit about the SC having two different chambers, how they abandoned the one after the law changed. "

Wait, they abandoned it after what law changed?

Anyway, more broadly -- MichiganMan, I agree that one should be open to all points of view, including those judged to be extreme. But by "be open to," I mean, "consider and weigh the arguments for." So, if one knows a lot about a particular field, it may take very little time to go through this process.

For example, if somebody came to me and claimed that, contra the expertise of physicists, the position of an object in free-fall is linear in a vacuum, I would be happy to "consider" his view, but it would take me no time at all to finish considering it and discard it: I am familiar with enough of the many experiment supporting the standard view, and have even performed simple but fairly accurate ones myself, so there is no need for me to take a long time worrying that he might be correct.

So also if somebody makes a radical claim about something else I know a decent bit about. It's not that I'm not open to fringe views. Some of them take a good deal of time to work through, you're right, and either shake you in your prior knowledge, or increase your understanding of it. But others can be very quickly dismissed if you have knowledge of the subject, and doing so is not refusing to give them due consideration.

"By studying these fringe things, by reading them and thinking about them, you come to understand your OWN views much better. Sometimes they change, but more times than not, they're strengthened."

I agree with that completely. I just don't think that's actually what you're doing. I think you're being so open-minded your brain is falling out.


And yeah, what law could possibly change which would cause the Supreme Court to abandon this alleged other chamber?

And I think you're being so close-minded and judgmental that you're bordered on being and obnoxious asshole -- no offense. :)

"And yeah, what law could possibly change which would cause the Supreme Court to abandon this alleged other chamber?"

Wouldn't you like to know?

I really don't care what any of you blocks of text think about me.

lol.

I just hope you don't mean the Fourteenth Amendment, since there was no Supreme Court building until the 1930s.

In any case, we can rest easy about there being a secret other Supreme Court chamber. It's not exactly like that wouldn't be a matter of public record, given all the lawyers and crowds who are allowed in there (and the many people who continue to work there).

I'm not sure what "they" mean, it's not my view, I've only read it.

Oh the good old public record attested to by lawyers. Yeah, I trust THEM to tell us if anything is a miss. Them and the NSA.