Public Law

[palani]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law

Public law is a theory of law governing the relationship between individuals (citizens, companies) and the state. Under this theory, Constitutional law, administrative law and criminal law are sub-divisions of public law. This theory is at odds with the concept of Constitutional law, which requires all law to be specifically enabled, and thereby sub-divisions, of a Constitution.

In the United States

Public/private law distinction

As most U.S. states share a heritage with English law, the private law of the United States is generally called the common law (as it is in other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions). Some states, such as New York, have strong civil law influences, and have enacted laws relating to obligations such as the General Obligations Law and the General Business Law. The distinction between the public and the private in law is often a hazy one. Many consumer protection laws are of a public law nature, which limits the ability of companies dealing with consumers to engage in transactions that fail to respect the rights of consumers. Most laws that impose criminal penalties are considered to be public laws, as these are intended to protect all members of society and not just the areas of interaction covered by contract and tort.

Well, this is certainly illuminating. Seems that public law is a theory and here I always thought theory evolved into law. Prominent jurists seem to have placed the cart before the horse.

And to think that common law is merely private law in the end analysis.

[netwrkranger]

I see the Kingdom is in bloom....

Thanks palani for the information.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[palani]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

And what a source too! Ancient and tested that Wiki is.

Information is presented from whatever source available. Truth, on the other hand, is subject to being re-presented (and mis-represented) in the process.

Feel free to fill in any errors:

This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources.

[ThomPaine]

It seems strange to consider common law to be private law, but in a sense i guess it is. I think of common law covering several tenets, which are really the foundation of all other laws. Of course there is common law marriage and other things not fitting this example, but that is not relevant here.

Do not damage a man or his property and do not engage in fraudulent or deceitful contracts, transactions or agreements.

Though this is very broad it is easy to see that the common thread here is damage, harm, fraud, loss, etc. which is the basis of almost all true and valid law (not counting special or administrative law, whose purpose is to generate revenue and support special interests)

I would also say that the common law is similar to the public law example given above, in that it should protect the public from harm. If I come to your door and offer you sell you bottled water and it is poison, even if you dont drink it, that is a fraudulent transaction.

Wiki is supposedly about 85-90% accurate, but I must wonder about that sometimes, especially when the editors are the mostly ignorant, uneducated public at large.

Thom

[mrg]

Codeee uses "wiki" when he needs it, and disparages it when he needs to.

Same for other sources too.

No double standards there.

[Thom. Jefferson's ill]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Do not damage a man or his property and do not engage in fraudulent or deceitful contracts, transactions or agreements.

I like this very much, another way of stating the Golden Rule. I believe I would restate it for my own personal use as:
Do not damage a man or his property and do not entice or present him in fraudulent or deceitful contracts, transactions or agreements.

My reasoning being that no matter how careful I am I may be engaged in fraudulent or deceitful contracts, transactions or agreements through no real fault of my own. As in your example below. As the seller of the bottled water did you know it was poisoned?

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Though this is very broad it is easy to see that the common thread here is damage, harm, fraud, loss, etc. which is the basis of almost all true and valid law (not counting special or administrative law, whose purpose is to generate revenue and support special interests)

I would also say that the common law is similar to the public law example given above, in that it should protect the public from harm. If I come to your door and offer you sell you bottled water and it is poison, even if you dont drink it, that is a fraudulent transaction.

Thom

I find it easier to evaluate the root of situations when I think in terms of harm. Who am I harming or of even greater concern today is there potential for harm? This type of thinking keeps me out of trouble.

[palani]

The article hints at a conflict that exists that would tend to reduce the efficacy of constitutions. Using the concept of "public law" all other forms have been categorized beneath this general heading. What the author would be appearing to promote is that public safety concepts override private rights.

He brings up the concept of common law being private law. Private law might also be thrown out when public safety concerns ("public law") are mentioned. Since the source of common law is the constitution that document gets discarded as soon as public safety issues are touched upon.

Now what constitutes "public safety" might be of interest. How about "global warming"? Can't have those polar bears and Floridians wading through sea water. Would "terrorism" qualify as a public safety concern? Anyone seeking constitutional protection of individual rights might have asperations to overthrow the government instead. Weakening dollar? How can the poor people get to work where they can serve their masters when the cost of gas approaches the minimum wage?

This is simply a continuation of the battle to throw out the constitution. Politicians (our public servants) already have all the power they need to rule the world. What appears to be fueling the present fire is that they are violating their oaths when they do so. Politicians go to extremes to hide their oath and surety bonds (if any). If you bring up these subjects they become furtive and they will throw you into the "terrorist" category.

[ThomPaine]

In order to avoid the situations mentioned directly above, the basis for common law needs to be something with a very strong foundation. IMO that basis is nature/god. We all know the golden rule, "He who has the gold, makes the rules." and then there is the other one too...:-)

If nature/god/creation/mother earth/whatever gives you rights as a man or woman, then to usurp those rights, someone or something must be more powerful than the grantor/provider.

I dont want to turn this into a thread about the origin of rights, but if the common law or natural rights can be usurped for public good or national security or terrorism or high gas prices, then what good are they. Over riding anything for the public good or a special interest wreaks of so******m and communism in my book..

If your common law/natural rights are indefensible, then they are no different than privileges and immunities granted to 14th ammendment citizens. Further if the limited power of atty from the citizenery to the govt, (Constitution), was given the respect that it deserves, none of this would be an issue.

Thom