Mr. Adams--
Thanks much--I appreciate the clarification, and follow your
train of thought now.
Why do you describe British law as arbitrary (you describe
British law as subject to "whims and rule changes to fit an
occasion")? Do you mean because in principle, the British
constitution was susceptible to legislative amendment? Or do
you mean to imply that in practice, it was arbitrary?
I am by no means a specialist in comparative
constitutionalism, but it does seem to me that for long
stretches of time the British constitution was fairly stable
in its interpretation and application. Just speculating, but
perhaps the fact that it *could* be revised easily by
legislative action had the ironic effect of rendering
constitutional change more considered than in systems like our
own that rely on institutional barriers to change?
My apologies in advance for wandering off topic here--but the
subject does strike me as quite interesting. I am sure if we
apply ourselves, we can find a way to make this relevant for a
Virginia history list-serv :)
All best,
Kevin
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:09:47 -0600
>From: John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: The Constitution
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>There was not supposed to be any confusion. My apologies for
my disjointed
>thought processes form time to time. I was only attempting to
note that the
>ex post facto rule was next to Habeas Corpus. To me these two
rules are
>among the most important that our ancestors saw fit to put
into the
>Constitution. Our English law had been one of whims and rule
changes to fit
>an occasion. And with these laws - rules we were protected
from laws
>allowing our persons to seizure and illegal incarceration.
>BTW, some of our research from Texas, we believe that
although Booth DID
>Shoot Lincoln, he was instigated into this action by VP
Johnson and some
>other members of the Cabinet to rid the country of Lincoln.
>I hope many of the southern contingents of this group
appreciate how
>disastrous Reconstruction was to our part of the country.
Johnson and the
>rest of his cabal certainly provided a horrible postscript to
the war. The
>only good part that came of this war was the dissolution of
slavery.
>
>John Philip Adams
>Texas
>[log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:44 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The Constitution
>
>Mr. Adams--
>
>I am confused by your post. I was responding to the question
>where to find the Habeus Corpus clauses in the Constitution,
>and likewise to various misrepresentations of the Court's
>finding in Ex Parte Milligan. I am quite willing to take your
>word for it that we can find the sentence you quote
>immediately following the Habeus Corpus sentence--but I I
>don't understand why you have drawn our attention to it?
>
>I am not trying to pick a fight here--I just don't see the
>connection.
>
>All best,
>Kevin
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:30:21 -0600
>>From: John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: The Constitution
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>SAME ARTICLE next line down.
>>"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>>Why isn't everyone paying attention to this, especially as it
>relates to so
>>many Tax matters.
>>JPAdams
>Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
>Department of History
>James Madison University
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
