It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of what remains the modern law of diversity jurisdiction as it applies to United States federal courts.
The Supreme Court had held that the federal courts need not also apply the court-made common law of the states.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
ROMAN LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND HAS NO INFLUENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION.
The Constituion is influenced by ENGLISH COMMON LAW.
God... I was soooooooo hoping that someone would post those quotes about the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
You obviously didn't read all of it, nor did you attempt to understand exactly why it was written, but hey...
THANK YOU for posting the very thing that will prove you wrong.
Since you seem to understand that they US Constitution was originally intended to be under common law jurisdiction, what exactly changed this in the Tompkins v. Erie Railroad SCOTUS decision?
a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction.
I am waiting for you to take the rope around your neck and tighten it.
Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Xcalibur254
I don't have to. The Constitution is taken as the Supreme Law of the Land and operates under Common Law. Common Law and Civil Law share the same provisions of the law regarding property, contracts, and tort. Those are the facts. Capitis diminutio maxima was Roman law in regards to slaves, and slaves are property, and this would be included in the common law provisions.
Your birth certificate is a contract, signed by your parents, detailing ownership of you and is filed away at the Bureau of Vital Statistics under the Department of Commerce. They hold your Birth Certificate indicating that they own possession of what it details; you.edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)
Of course the court cant create federal law. Thats not what courts do.
So, where is this law on the books, anyway? We're all still waiting.
A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Except that since you claim that all English Common law is overridden with your pet SC Case, then that means there can be no civil rights ebcause the BoR draws on English Common Law to define the civil rights.
The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone.