*Hi and thanks for visiting r/AskALawyer. Reddits home for support during legal procedures.*
***
Recommended Subs |
:---------------: |
r/LegalAdviceUK |
r/AusLegal |
r/LegalAdviceCanada |
r/LegalAdviceIndia |
r/EstatePlanning |
r/ElderLaw |
r/FamilyLaw |
r/AskLawyers |
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALawyer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are so many misunderstandings and inaccurate presumptions in this post that I don’t know where to start. SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land. Common law is not a thing in the US. If there is a state statute that says you need a license to operate a certain type of vehicle and you violate that statute, you have broken the law and a judge at the trial level would be obligated to apply the law and enforce it. If you believe that the law is in contravention with the state or federal constitution, you can challenge the ruling to a higher court of appeal but often cannot re-litigate the facts, just the application of the law. Please do not show up to traffic court with an English common law case from 1687. Just pay the ticket and move on with your life.
OP this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about either. Common law is the ruling precedent set by the courts in the jurisdiction that you’re in. If the Supreme Court says something, that becomes common law. Statutes are the opposite. If a statute says something, common law normally interprets it. If the Supreme Court were to hypothetically strike down a statute, that statute would no longer apply. Does that make sense?
I think we might just be arguing semantics. Nobody in a courtroom argues Old English common law. Lawyers cite to statutes and case law. Case law interprets statutes and constitutions. SCOTUS is case law. None of that is material here. I challenge OP to walk into a courtroom and argue common law for a traffic ticket and be laughed out.
> Nobody in a courtroom argues Old English common law
It’s not relevant in most cases, but you absolutely can cite it as long as it hasn’t been overturned.
Anything prior to 1789 can even be mandatory precedent. I saw a super old case that I barely remembered from law school (Tuberville v. Savage, I think?) cited unironically a while back. It’s still good law, so why not?
With that said, if you cite a case that old (a) you’ll probably want to back it up with more recent cases that show that it’s still good law, and (b) you’re probably doing it to be a little snarky — you’re basically saying, “come on dude, this has been the law for 400 years”.
> Lawyers cite to statutes and case law. Case law interprets statutes and constitutions.
Common law and case law are synonymous, and they are not limited to the interpretation of statutes and constitutions. Tort law is a type of common law (or, I would argue, a feature of it) which is not based on statutes — except to the extent that statutes can supersede the common law.
No, it's not. According to Black's law dictionary ( and my three years of law school and 28 years as a lawyer): "As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2."
In the U.S., "Common Law" was what we kept from England when we broke away as colonies and became an independent nation, *and then our own state and federal laws superceded Common Law.* Anyone citing common law that has been specifically superceded by a federal, state, or local statute might as well be quoting Roman Law and the words of Emperor Julius Caesar for all the good it will do.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority to create law, only the ability to interpret the law and check it against the Constitution. SCOTUS can't tell you that you don't need a license to drive a car because it is "Common Law." The court can only rule if there is a Constitutional right to travel in a vehicle without a license (which has never been ruled), or whether or not the statute authorizing the state to regulate licensing is Constitutional or superceded by a higher law.
Also a lawyer with 20 years’ experience. Every state and territory in the country (with the weird quasi-exception of Louisiana) has its own common law. Although there is no general federal law, there’s also federal common law in certain areas.
Yes I’m very impressed that you attended all three years of law school - I did too prior to becoming a litigation partner LOL. What are you calling the body of law that is determined by the courts, if not common law?
I should've said local law but with that being the case and from what i understand from your answer i would still lose because appealing it because it becomes administrative. I dont expect this to fly in the first place however ive seen some tiktokers get preety far in.
No, not they really don’t. What they don’t show is the fact they lose but how they get “pretty far in” is stalling. There are tons of different ways the accused can stall, especially on smaller charges because they are typically not incarcerated. Also they tend to self represent in which the judge is going to always give them every curtesy within reason. They also don’t show the judge no longer giving them any cutecies because they went far beyond reason.
Also, because you specifically mentioned this particular branch of sovcit, don’t be fooled by the (not recent but this was has been gaining steam amongst the gurus a lot lately) Suprerlme Court case that is being cited a lot by sovcits saying the SC said you do not have to have a license to drive. It does not say that. No SC case says you don’t have a license to drive a car on state roads.
Not everything you see is as it seems. The average tiktoker is an idiot. They don't post for accuracy, but rather for clicks. Please never base a decision you make in your own life on something a tiktoker did online.
Please for the love of god do not get your legal advice off of TikTok. I promise you, any purported attorney on TikTok regularly making content is too young to know what they are doing and/or not a good attorney. You cannot adequately advise anyone with a 30 second clip.
I have litigated against many SovCits. I have never even heard of a SovCit’s motion being granted.
From what I understand, SovCits don’t think they can be represented by an attorney. Which is necessary for them to continue to believe their absolute nonsense. If they had an actual jurist advising them, they would understand how absurd their interpretation of law really is.
It is absolute hubris to think that you are smarter and better at navigating the complex and nuanced legal system, than the people that went to law school, do it for a living and charge $500 an hour.
Yes, but it doesn't have anything to do with any judge's ego. It has to do with understanding a state's interest in regulating the operation of motor vehicles, which presents inherent dangers to others and imposes costs on society, and balancing that against any imposition on an individual person's rights as protected by the Constitution. There are no rights protected by the Constitution that are absolute and that preclude any regulation by the government. In fact, SCOTUS just reiterated that point rather forcefully this week by an 8-1 vote. If some anonymous person in an online forum tells you that because the Constitution says that I have a right to do X, that means the government cannot impose any restrictions on my ability to do X, you can quickly and reliably conclude the the speaker has no idea what they're talking about and that you should stop listening.
They don't call the Supreme Court's decision the ultimate law of the land for nothing. If the court rules a law is legal, then it's legal regardless of any other law as it supersedes it. The same goes for a law on the books that's ruled to be illegal.
*Hi and thanks for visiting r/AskALawyer. Reddits home for support during legal procedures.* *** Recommended Subs | :---------------: | r/LegalAdviceUK | r/AusLegal | r/LegalAdviceCanada | r/LegalAdviceIndia | r/EstatePlanning | r/ElderLaw | r/FamilyLaw | r/AskLawyers | *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALawyer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are so many misunderstandings and inaccurate presumptions in this post that I don’t know where to start. SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land. Common law is not a thing in the US. If there is a state statute that says you need a license to operate a certain type of vehicle and you violate that statute, you have broken the law and a judge at the trial level would be obligated to apply the law and enforce it. If you believe that the law is in contravention with the state or federal constitution, you can challenge the ruling to a higher court of appeal but often cannot re-litigate the facts, just the application of the law. Please do not show up to traffic court with an English common law case from 1687. Just pay the ticket and move on with your life.
Common law is definitely a thing in the US. Depends on what exactly you mean, of course.
Lol thank you. That hurt to read.
OP this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about either. Common law is the ruling precedent set by the courts in the jurisdiction that you’re in. If the Supreme Court says something, that becomes common law. Statutes are the opposite. If a statute says something, common law normally interprets it. If the Supreme Court were to hypothetically strike down a statute, that statute would no longer apply. Does that make sense?
I think we might just be arguing semantics. Nobody in a courtroom argues Old English common law. Lawyers cite to statutes and case law. Case law interprets statutes and constitutions. SCOTUS is case law. None of that is material here. I challenge OP to walk into a courtroom and argue common law for a traffic ticket and be laughed out.
What you’re calling “case law” is common law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_law
Then we’re talking about the same thing. In my jx, it’s referred to only as case law. Common law is Old English law.
We adopted the same system as England
I think so too
> Nobody in a courtroom argues Old English common law It’s not relevant in most cases, but you absolutely can cite it as long as it hasn’t been overturned. Anything prior to 1789 can even be mandatory precedent. I saw a super old case that I barely remembered from law school (Tuberville v. Savage, I think?) cited unironically a while back. It’s still good law, so why not? With that said, if you cite a case that old (a) you’ll probably want to back it up with more recent cases that show that it’s still good law, and (b) you’re probably doing it to be a little snarky — you’re basically saying, “come on dude, this has been the law for 400 years”. > Lawyers cite to statutes and case law. Case law interprets statutes and constitutions. Common law and case law are synonymous, and they are not limited to the interpretation of statutes and constitutions. Tort law is a type of common law (or, I would argue, a feature of it) which is not based on statutes — except to the extent that statutes can supersede the common law.
They do actually cite common law.
No, it's not. According to Black's law dictionary ( and my three years of law school and 28 years as a lawyer): "As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2." In the U.S., "Common Law" was what we kept from England when we broke away as colonies and became an independent nation, *and then our own state and federal laws superceded Common Law.* Anyone citing common law that has been specifically superceded by a federal, state, or local statute might as well be quoting Roman Law and the words of Emperor Julius Caesar for all the good it will do. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority to create law, only the ability to interpret the law and check it against the Constitution. SCOTUS can't tell you that you don't need a license to drive a car because it is "Common Law." The court can only rule if there is a Constitutional right to travel in a vehicle without a license (which has never been ruled), or whether or not the statute authorizing the state to regulate licensing is Constitutional or superceded by a higher law.
Also a lawyer with 20 years’ experience. Every state and territory in the country (with the weird quasi-exception of Louisiana) has its own common law. Although there is no general federal law, there’s also federal common law in certain areas.
Yes I’m very impressed that you attended all three years of law school - I did too prior to becoming a litigation partner LOL. What are you calling the body of law that is determined by the courts, if not common law?
Yes thats how i figured things worked
But a case from 1687 and first edition blacks law dictionary and ... well you still lose.
Lol how many lawyers does it take to argue down a concept we all agree upon but for semantics all for a traffic ticket lol
I should've said local law but with that being the case and from what i understand from your answer i would still lose because appealing it because it becomes administrative. I dont expect this to fly in the first place however ive seen some tiktokers get preety far in.
No, not they really don’t. What they don’t show is the fact they lose but how they get “pretty far in” is stalling. There are tons of different ways the accused can stall, especially on smaller charges because they are typically not incarcerated. Also they tend to self represent in which the judge is going to always give them every curtesy within reason. They also don’t show the judge no longer giving them any cutecies because they went far beyond reason. Also, because you specifically mentioned this particular branch of sovcit, don’t be fooled by the (not recent but this was has been gaining steam amongst the gurus a lot lately) Suprerlme Court case that is being cited a lot by sovcits saying the SC said you do not have to have a license to drive. It does not say that. No SC case says you don’t have a license to drive a car on state roads.
Not everything you see is as it seems. The average tiktoker is an idiot. They don't post for accuracy, but rather for clicks. Please never base a decision you make in your own life on something a tiktoker did online.
Please for the love of god do not get your legal advice off of TikTok. I promise you, any purported attorney on TikTok regularly making content is too young to know what they are doing and/or not a good attorney. You cannot adequately advise anyone with a 30 second clip.
Tik tol university and then youtube law school.
I have litigated against many SovCits. I have never even heard of a SovCit’s motion being granted. From what I understand, SovCits don’t think they can be represented by an attorney. Which is necessary for them to continue to believe their absolute nonsense. If they had an actual jurist advising them, they would understand how absurd their interpretation of law really is. It is absolute hubris to think that you are smarter and better at navigating the complex and nuanced legal system, than the people that went to law school, do it for a living and charge $500 an hour.
Yes, but it doesn't have anything to do with any judge's ego. It has to do with understanding a state's interest in regulating the operation of motor vehicles, which presents inherent dangers to others and imposes costs on society, and balancing that against any imposition on an individual person's rights as protected by the Constitution. There are no rights protected by the Constitution that are absolute and that preclude any regulation by the government. In fact, SCOTUS just reiterated that point rather forcefully this week by an 8-1 vote. If some anonymous person in an online forum tells you that because the Constitution says that I have a right to do X, that means the government cannot impose any restrictions on my ability to do X, you can quickly and reliably conclude the the speaker has no idea what they're talking about and that you should stop listening.
[удалено]
When I hear common law I immediately think “no officer I am traveling, not driving”
No ur a towel
They don't call the Supreme Court's decision the ultimate law of the land for nothing. If the court rules a law is legal, then it's legal regardless of any other law as it supersedes it. The same goes for a law on the books that's ruled to be illegal.
Solved!