The law that is common & the root of the common law

[aksis]

The Law Common & Root of the Common Law

Natural law: Cause and Effect

The Law of Love: Love God and Love one another.[1]

"Do naught unto Others as You would not have done unto to You."*

Before the term "Common Law" came into existance as a formal Title, in England & later adoped by the People of the united States of America, travlers found that most places they travled, there was a system of "law" that was common, or, that *most* Tribes, Societies & the various Schools of Thought (religions & philosophies & various spirituality) had this single principle as the common root element of right living.

In this current day & age, this simple principle, in some manner of wording, is taught in most households as the basis of Right Living & how One should act in regards to Others.

It is not the law because Someone says it is, or, because any particular spiritual book declared it to be. It is the law because You will find that if You go arround doing things to People that You would not want done to You, in the more extreem instances, you will eventual be KILLED! NO JOKE. YOU WILL DIE. DON'T HARM US! WE DON'T LIKE IT!!!!!

Now, before You get all bent out of shape, In the more common & less exterrm instances, you won't be killed, but you would probably be beaten, harmed in some way, or, imprisioned...

No One likes People doing anything to them, untill they have give their permission to the One who wants to do something, to do it.

This single simple principle was the law even before written language, and all knowledge was passed word of mouth. It was the law before courts & judges of any kind even existed.

Due to the fact that earlier instances of justice were delievered by the "mob" & not very just, and, to protect People from false accusations, (bearing false witness | slander), & excessive punishments for petty infractions, (death sentence for petty theft) this "mob justice" was replaced by what is commonly thought of as a "court".

Early examples of a "court" was simply events like a Tribe's Chief settling disputes between Tribe Members... it has evolved.

As time went on & "court" evolved, the law seemingly evolved as well.

The law common was further clarified into these 2 veins.

^

1)Harm no One in their body, Character, person[s], or property.

2)Honor Your lawful agreements.

Yet both of these distinct, yet simple principles remained rooted in the law common. Ask any sain Human & They will tell You:

"I don't want People to harm Me or My property."
"I don't want People to break Their agreements with Me."

Together, these 3 principles form the basis of the Common Law of Earth, not just of England, or of the uSA, but all of Earth.

Since there are many different common ways that these simple principles have been violated over the ages eventualy, terms to describe such violations came into existance. Murder, Theft, Slander, Trespassing, Assult, Breach of Contract ,etc... Its not that the law evolved or changed, simply the descriptions of actions that were in violation of it were created.

Now, in the uSA, the common law court of the People is established based upon these 3 main principles.

The 2 main venues that a suit was to be brought in was to be either Law or Equity. In proper prespective, admiralty & maritime are both sub-venues of Equity because to end up in a court of either admiralty or maritime, People would obviously have to be under the effects of a contract/agreement.

If some One harmed You or Your property (a tort) it would be a suit in Law.

If some One didn't honor the terms of an agreement/contract, it would be a suit in Equity.

Many People would argue that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, yet, it is only a creature of the Common Law. The real Supreme Law of the Land is the Common Law & this is the law that not even a sovereign is above...

The Supreme Law of the Land for any public Official, is not only the Common Law, but also the Constitution of the united States of America. It, the Constitution is a lawful agreement binding on all public servents who of their freewill agreed to be bound.

________________________________________________
[1] I initialy created this thread with the intentions of it being acceptable to people who don't believe in God in some way, shape or form. I have corrected this.

* Many will notice that this is not the exact words of what has come to be known as the Golden Rule. Upon contemplation of the 2, you will find:

Do unto others as You would have done unto You.

Is an advocation for People to do things to People, and, they may not be like You or want to be treated like You... there in is its flaw.The correct statement, (either it had been mistranslated or the disciple erred), is:

Do naught unto Others as You would not have done unto You.

This is an advocation to refrain from doing anything to People, that they wouldn't want done. It requires that People would get consent before People do aything to any One.

** I obviously didn't bother to go into depth on natural/Universal law ...

Excellent line of thought Aksis.

I have noticed throught many of the threads on this forum, the term 'common law' is used extensively and I have also noticed that there are probably as many different meanings of the term as there are usages of the term.

As your language has pointed out, the Common law predates the judicial system(s) by at least a couple of weeks (LOL), it would stand to reason that this principal of living would also go back to the days of prehistory. When men/women lived in secluded colonies/villages composed of only a few. Now considering the common law of those communities, it is also apparent that a fishing community would have a different set of common laws as that of a more industrialized community. Therefore, it would also be reasonable to presume that the common law would be more aptly defined as 'a set of laws/rules of behavior that are locally accepted as normal for that community.' At least that is my humble opinion. What say the others in this forum?

This can be easilly evidenced by viewing the world community today. "Third world" countries being taken over by the more industrialized countries. The more industrialized, believing that their culture is the 'right' one for the entire global community, tend to disrespect the local common law of the less industrialized communities for the sake of monetary gain through the mineral content of those smaller communities.

Just a thought.

Jerry.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

When men/women lived in secluded colonies/villages composed of only a few. Now considering the common law of those communities, it is also apparent that a fishing community would have a different set of common laws as that of a more industrialized community. Therefore, it would also be reasonable to presume that the common law would be more aptly defined as 'a set of laws/rules of behavior that are locally accepted as normal for that community.' At least that is my humble opinion. What say the others in this forum?

From my prespective, were we to look at all local law/customs, they all have certian elements in common.

Upon further contemplation, these common elements, or principles for right living are universal in scope. They are found in all scriptures & philosophies.

Since the scriptures and philosophies are the root of the thinking of the people, this is the common ground. This is the place that the initial 'meeting of the minds' occures for building any socitial system.

When we strip away the things that are different, and the remainder is refined down to its base principle, we find that there is a global system of law that all people already comprehend & are already living & that is being enforced by the people.

As soon as there are additions to the common law & base set of principles, I would call that 'local customs', or 'local law', not 'common law', even though local law and customs will be rooted in common law, it is still an addition or comentary on common law.

Further, any just 'local law' will be rooted in the 'common law'. We find in this day and age more and more statutes that are repugnent to common law.

To use jerry's two example cultures, a basic industrial & fishing community: you will find in both, laws on waste disposal, and while the wording of the laws would be different in the laws dealing with waste disposal, the goal is the same: To prevent the toxification of the environment.

Would anyone want their neighbor to produce so much trash/waste that it poisoned the water they drink or the air they breath? No. Thus, such activity would consist of actions, done to others, that people wouldn't want done to them.

You would also find that killing, assult, & theft are crimes in both the example cultures, and that these crimes have nothing to do with the means by which the culture sustains itself.

All just law can be found rooted in the common law.

Originally Posted by aksis

All just law can be found rooted in the common law.

Aksis: I totally concur with everything you said prior to the above quote, and I have retained that quote because it is an excellent summary of your intent.

The key of what you have been saying is the focus of what is "just" . When the entire community can agree on what is 'just', then you have concurrance and a meaningful establishment of what could be termed "law".

Now my question is forced to turn toward that individual that feels the new suggested law is not 'just'? Is the community going to drive him/her from their presence? Is that a 'just' measure? Suppose this individual had lived in the community his/her entire life. Now being forced into a new environment because someone came up with a lame brain idea is not exactly 'just'.

I find it similar to what is happening in the mid-eastern countries. These countries have lived for centuries with customs/laws/codes that met the needs of their particular society. Now here comes the Americans in need of the oil that is possessed by those other countries. Is it right 'just' for us to force upon them a new way of life simply because of our presence? When I was in Korea during my tour of duty, I took the initiative of living primarily with the members of that society and learning their customs as well as how to read write and speak Korean. I did not expect them to conform to my ways of thinking or to learn my language. I was their guest and as such, I respected their culture much the same way we expect visitors from other countries to learn our language and customs and culture. I submitted my being to their Common Law.

Jerry

[Codee]

The entire concept of having two governements (one for the people and one for the King) goes all the way back to English common law. So common law has produced some pretty nasty things. Just remember that in common law the people are subject to the King.

[Freedomless]

Was not each man a king in and of himself in America and God's law?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Freedomless

Was not each man a king in and of himself in America and God's law?

NOPE. American law was under the King until the revolution and the formation of the United States which was the government for america. At that time english common law became frozen for Americans and did not evolve. American court cases are the documented evolution/drift from- common law. In America while under only common law and no United States yet, people were subjects to the King. Sorry, but even the magna charta recognizes the King's political power.

I do not know about Gods law though. I can not answer that part at this time. Could you please post any religious citations you may have for my edification?

[aksis]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

The key of what you have been saying is the focus of what is "just" . When the entire community can agree on what is 'just', then you have concurrance and a meaningful establishment of what could be termed "law".

Jerry,

Before we go any further, I would like to assert that the majority of people on Earth agree that what I am, (and others are), calling "gloabl common law" as being the essance of the way to determin what is "just".

To do something to someone that you would not want done to you, (like doing anything withouth their consent), is the essance of injustice.

To harm them, in their body, character, person[s], or property would be to do them an injustice.

To make an agreement and then break it would also be an injustice.

Obligating the people, (even those holding office), to deceipher this mess of verbage and inconsistant & contradicting acts, that no one is capable of reading the sum of in a single life time, (including the sup. Court Justices), is not just.

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Now my question is forced to turn toward that individual that feels the new suggested law is not 'just'? Is the community going to drive him/her from their presence? Is that a 'just' measure? Suppose this individual had lived in the community his/her entire life. Now being forced into a new environment because someone came up with a lame brain idea is not exactly 'just'.

What you are calling "law" is ultimatly a part of an agreement that people have chosen to make.

The global common law, (this may seem like a new term to many, and is more a discription, than a title), existed before any nation was ever formed, and it is what makes it possable for a nation to be created.

Look at the uSA for example. It is created by, what could be simply described as, a contract. Those chosing to be a party to this, do so by the "honor your laful agreements" aspect of the global common law.

The 'terms of the agreement' are the vast sum of text loosly called 'law'. This is true of every nation currently in existance.

In fact, in the "terms of the agreement" there is a "clause" so people can ceace being a party to the agreement via the right of expatriation. (found in the Statutes @ Large & via Treaty ~ UN Dec. Human Rights - Article 15)

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Is it right 'just' for us to force upon them a new way of life simply because of our presence?

No.

All governments are guilty of this type of injustice in many instances, as well as many of the people composing the particular nation states. I contemplate "group karma", and look at the Earth as a whole over thousands of years. You will be able to observe that Divine justice has always been in full force and effect, it usualy seems to work slowly due to the complexity of such large groups.

The Egyptians fell, the Roman Empire fell, Germany fell, the US is currently the global invader, they have armed men on the land of almost every nation on Earth... can you guess what is going to happen?

Granted, the uSA could change course, it is still very possable, and unlike the predecessors persuing world conquest, many of the nations, upon seeing the value of working together, willing chose to partisipate in the UN. This has prevented much ill karma by the US's slow invasion. That was the ideal. Not this forced invasion by this corrupted version of the american Ideal, called D.C.[U.S.].

Originally Posted by codee

The entire concept of having two governements (one for the people and one for the King) goes all the way back to English common law. So common law has produced some pretty nasty things. Just remember that in [english] common law the people are subject to the King.

Codee, "English common law" has nothing to do with what we are discussing in this thread. You know this. Quit with your games.

Originally Posted by freedomless

Was not each man a king in and of himself in America and God's law?

Free[domless], Why are you asking a question that you already know the answer to?

Originally Posted by codee

American law was under the King until the revolution and the formation of the United States which was the government for america.

Codee, Thats not quite accurat enough. The signing of the Declaration of Independance terminated the Kings Rule (I don't really give a **** what the king might have thought about it...). It was many years before the Articles of Confederation were even established, much less the United States via its constitution. In this span of time is an interesting contemplation. What was the law during this period (it wasn't anarchy).

Originally Posted by codee

At that time english common law became frozen for Americans and did not evolve. ["english common law" has nothing to do with this discussion.] American court cases are the documented evolution/drift from - common law.[nor are we discussing past interpretations of mixed american common law/uSA law forums] In America while under only common law and no United States yet, people were subjects to the King.

This is not true either. The people who violated one another were tried by the law common, (this ultimatly encompasses the 10 commandments so far as people could judge... like people can judge your relationship with God, or some of the commandments), and unless they wanted "trial by mob", "trial by jury" was already in full force & effect, regardless of the fact that there was no formal government in place for many years.

Granted, not every jury trial in the histories was just, nor are the trials today any more or less just, yet the judicial system back then would easly be comprehended by the average highschool graduate of today, and what most people loosly call "law", wouldn't take 3 lifetimes to read.

[aksis]

SHARED BELIEF IN THE "GOLDEN RULE"

Ethics of Reciprocity

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Quotation:

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama

Overview

Religious groups differ greatly in their concepts of deity, other beliefs and practices. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, also exhibit a wide range of beliefs. But there is near unanimity of opinion among almost all religions, ethical systems and philosophies that each person should treat others in a decent manner. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you."

One result of this Ethic is the concept that every person shares certain inherent human rights, simply because of their membership in the human race. People are individually very different; they come in two main genders; different sizes, colors, and shapes; many races; three sexual orientations; and different degrees of ability. They follow many religious and economic systems, speak many languages, and follow many different cultures. But there is a growing consensus that all humans are equal in importance. All should enjoy basic human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is one manifestation of this growing worldwide consensus. 1,2

In our opinion, the greatest failure of organized religion is its historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers. It is our belief that religions should stress that their membership use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, the other gender, other races, other sexual orientations, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.

Some "Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from the religious texts of various beliefs:

Bahá'í World Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not."

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

Brahmanism:
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23

"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

Ancient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3

Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517

Humanism:
"(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."

"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4

"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3

Islam:
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam

"Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5

Jainism:
"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Judaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6

Native American Spirituality:
"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.

"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk

"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.

Roman Pagan Religion:
"The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."

Shintoism:
"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"

"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga

[aksis]

Sikhism:
Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib

"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259

"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299

Sufism:
"The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

Taoism:
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.

"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

Unitarian:
"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles.

Wicca:
"An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede

Yoruba: (Nigeria):
"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

Zoroastrianism:
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

Some philosophers' statements are:

Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)

Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)

Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)

Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)

Examples from moral/ethical systems are:

Humanism: "...critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled." Humanist Manifesto II; Ethics section.

Scientology: "20: Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you." This is one of the 21 moral precepts that form the moral code explained in L. Ron Hubbard's booklet "The Way to Happiness."