Before The Barbecues (Updated) (Updated Again) (Updated Yet Again To The Point Where The Updates Are Three Times As Long As The Original Post)

(Don't forget to visit Bob Kat to congratulate her on attaining her M.B.A.-- RDS)

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

**********

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
(My Emphasis)

I wish you all a happy and safe Independence Day, celebrating the day we moved out of Mother Britain's basement and got our own place.

Cheers.

R. Sherman

(Update, Prepublication: I wrote the above yesterday evening and had it scheduled to go at midnight, when a quick review of Drudge pointed out this news from Great Britain. I'm not sure I could have read anything more stunning. "Gobsmacked" is good way to describe my reaction. Indeed, a few cursewords escaped from their mental dungeon into the air of our family room as I read the story. For what follows, by all means feel free to insert F-bombs where you feel they are appropriate.

I did.

Although we celebrate our independence of Great Britain, our system of jurisprudence is derived from the great body of English common law. Indeed, to truly understand American law in so many areas, from real estate to court structure to trial practice to contracts, one must have a working knowledge of British law. In point of fact, a cursory review of the litany of complaints we had against George III, indicates that many were based upon his deprivation of the colonies of the protection of English law. As I've said on these pages before, in 1776, we just wanted to be considered Englishmen, with the rights and privileges appertaining thereto.

To think that the Lord Chief Justice of Great Britain would willingly sign away the rights of his countrymen to a system which, in virtually every respect, is the antithesis of English jurisprudence is something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.

It matters not, that the abrogation is allowed ostensibly only in the cases where the parties consent in contract. It has long been a foundation of our jurisprudence that some contracts are against public policy. Indeed, in contract law, there is something known as "Contracts of Adhesion" which are oft deemed unenforceable. It's difficult to see how such a contract waiving rights and remedies under a system of laws enacted for the benefit of all citizens is anything but such.

There is a reason our founders referred to certain rights as "unalienable." They cannot be given away. Clearly, in reading the highlighted language of the Declaration of Independence, one sees that the list presented is not intended to be all-inclusive. The word "among" demonstrates that conclusively. Dare I suggest, such rights would include the right to be protected from my signing away freedoms and protections provided under laws enacted for the good of all citizens. Query whether the Lord Chief Justice's remarks demonstrate the beginnings of a form of British government which again is becoming "destructive" of the ends of protecting the unalienable rights of all subjects to the British Crown. I may have to reevaluate my Anglophilia.--RDS)

(Second Update Because The Above Is Really Ticking Me Off: I've written numerous contracts specifying that if litigation becomes necessary, the law of a specific jurisdiction will apply. This is necessary if the parties reside in different jurisdictions. The Lord Chief Justice appears to compare the contractual choice of Sharia over English Common Law to such situations.

In a word, "Bollocks."

Sharia is a different legal system, a different jurisprudence entirely. It is one where, by definition, certain individuals are not entitled to "equal treatment under the law," i.e. women, infidels, gays, etc. It is utterly antithetical to the development of our legal philosphy since the barons gave King John the finger at Runnymede. These two systems are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist, can never coexist and I will not argue about that.

Just sayin'. -- RDS)

(Third Update, Written After I Went To Bed But Continued To Stew About This Much To The EMBLOS' Dismay: And by the way, if one is born a Muslim, one is always Muslim. One cannot choose to opt out. To do so constitutes the crime of "apostasy" which is punishable by death. Therefore, if one is born to Muslim parents, one is automatically subject to Sharia by definition. It would appear that the Lord Chief Justice has thrown every female British subject born to Muslim parents directly under the bus.

In the immortal words of Don Henley and The Eagles:

Welcome to the Hotel Caliphate, (Such a lovely place X 2)
We are welcome to receive.
You can check in anytime you like,
But you can never leave.

Sorry about that last part.--RDS)

(Fourth Update Entitled, "And Another Flippin' Thing:" If something like that were come out of the mouth of one of our Supreme Court Justices, there would be a hell of a lot of people, including your humble correspondent, locking and loading and heading into the hills. Thank God for the Second Amendment.

And I'd feel the same way, if someone said "Baptist Courts" are a legitimate alternative. See also, this.

Ok. I'm done.--RDS)

(Fourth Update: I lied. I'm not done.

One thing we did on our own, without the assistance of Great Britain, and which our British friends could perhaps ponder is the following.

I am a member of the bars of the courts of the State of Missouri, The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Missouri, The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States. I took an oath in order to be admitted to practice in these courts. In Missouri, I swore to protect "the defenseless and oppressed." For all four, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Said Constitution contains The Fourteenth Amendment thereto, Section I of which states, with my emphasis, as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When I swore that oath, I meant it.

Every single time.

Every damn word.

So help me God.

[I swear I'll edit this tomorrow.]-- RDS)