American law originates from British Common Law. Specifically Common Law before we split from them. 1776 and all that. It's where the 2nd Amendment comes from and a right to defend yourself. But after 1776, our jurisprudence system was evolving along its own path.
Britain didn't overturn trial by combat until after we declared independence. No American court has really addressed it. Ergo, trial by combat may still be legitimate under U.S. Law. Thoughts?
Will the Miranda warning change to, "You have the right to speak to an attorney or to request trial by combat."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hmm. Interesting. Might have missed something, but my quick check of the Constitution says in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 that:...."but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person Attainted."
So its possible, I think, as long as it is done all over the place. We have a ban against "Cruel AND Unusual Punishment". Remember when there was a little uproar a few years back when it was discovered that Delaware still had Flogging on the Books? Now if EVERY State used Flogging, then it would "Cruel", but NOT "Unusual."
Which is why the Anti-Death Penalty Crowd keeps hoping that if less than 25 States have the Death Penalty, then it can be wiped from the Books nationwide.
Trial by Combat? Crap. I guess I better start practicing heavy combat again.
I'd love to see the Bladensburg Dueling Grounds reactivated. Congressmen use to fight duels there.
Given the general lack of spine in our elected officials The Halls of Congress would be all but deserted.
I can see Col. West (R.-Fla) at dawn with a flintlock in hand ready to defend his opinion.
The fifth amendment guarantees due process.
Opting for trial by combat is due process
(Let's try this again.)
Wouldn't that be "duel" process?
Post a Comment