Aimee wrote quoting Jim: > > If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution > > not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? > > You gnaw at a branch and call it a root. You have common law (the law of > common men, lex communis), and legislative law (bringing the law of the > sovereign). Common law precedent is an aggregate body of knowledge > consisting not only decisions, but of logical constructs -- a way of > approaching and framing legal thought. Common law has never been > codified in > a document, it's a body of relational knowledge. The Constitution > is not the > primary authority, because constitutions (legislative law) are > not the root > of what you see as law. Indeed, the US Const. finds root in common law and > common right. > > Lex est ab eterno. Correct, to which I would add: "Precedent" is a word of art. It means the decision of an appellate court to which lower courts must defer. The Constitution can no more be a "precedent" that it can be a banana. S a n d y
