Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
22. We inherited English common law.
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:00 PM
Nov 2012

In England, at the time of our founding, there were courts of law (the king's courts, which were secular and handled only secular matters) and courts of equity (the church's courts, that handled supposedly religious matters--marriage, divorce, probate, succession, and crimes against God or the church). We inherited this system, and despite our preference for separation of church and state, we still divide courts into courts of law (which handle matters that were traditionally handled by the king's courts) and courts of equity (which handle everything else). Any court of equity has "broad equitable power" to fashion a remedy (a legal order) that is "equitable" (i.e. fair), including making people go to church; making people attend A.A. meetings; ordering the recount every single ballot in Florida, or all the ballots in a few, select counties in Florida; making people wear embarrassing signs while standing out in front of the court house; you name it.

Personally, I get a little concerned when judges sitting in courts of law do these sorts of things. Traditionally, judges in courts of law could not do this, but judges in courts of equity can order just about anything that they think is fair.

Please note that the states' adoption of the English common law predates the Constitution of the United States, and all of the states, except Louisiana, which still operates under Code Napoleon, embrace and enforce English common law to this day--except to the extent that the common law has been "abrogated," i.e. changed, by statute or later case law. The Constitution of the United States did not, nor was it intended to, abrogate English common law.

-Laelth

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

BA of .006? Gidney N Cloyd Nov 2012 #1
That's completely within the discretion of a judge in a court of equity. Laelth Nov 2012 #2
How can a US JUDGE mandate CHURCH legally? renie408 Nov 2012 #9
Exactly. Also What "Church"? Hindi? Islam? Snake Handlers? n/t Yavin4 Nov 2012 #14
i belong to the church of the born again hedonist. i wonder if that counts leftyohiolib Nov 2012 #21
it's not establishing religion the religion is already established. you saying it is doesnt make leftyohiolib Nov 2012 #18
We inherited English common law. Laelth Nov 2012 #22
court mandated ignorance...great bowens43 Nov 2012 #3
This was part of a plea bargain that the kid agreed to. cbayer Nov 2012 #4
oops...try again! renie408 Nov 2012 #8
Yes he can, if the party agrees to that as part of a plea bargain. cbayer Nov 2012 #11
not only can he but he did - the kid could said hell no but he didnt leftyohiolib Nov 2012 #20
This is what is called strange and unusual punishment. vaberella Nov 2012 #5
does it specify what kind of church...? BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #6
Is Oklahoma even part of the United States still??? renie408 Nov 2012 #7
Uhh, no, we are still one of the united states. CBGLuthier Nov 2012 #25
Community Service would be better HockeyMom Nov 2012 #10
There is no proof that there is a moral advantage to church going- look at the Republicans! RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #23
That's going to stop him from drinking - magical thinking treestar Nov 2012 #12
I wonder if this could be appealed on the grounds that Skidmore Nov 2012 #13
i have one ... leftyohiolib Nov 2012 #19
Semantics. billh58 Nov 2012 #24
Would someone object Prometheus_unbound Nov 2012 #15
Ugh. Attending church won't help this kid with his substance abuse riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #16
This should definitely not be within the judge's purview. malthaussen Nov 2012 #17
Are they appealing or letting it stand? hrmjustin Nov 2012 #26
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Separation of Church and ...»Reply #22