Are Common, Admirality, Equity and Martial law the ONLY laws agreed upon in the U.S. Constitution?
96805
I'm not sure what you mean by the term "ONLY laws agreed upon in the U.S. Constitution".  The U.S. Constitution discuss many areas of law that are not on your list such as bankruptcy and patent/trademark law.
511617
Nope. The laws in our country protect us from absolute authority... there have been a few ammendments added but for the most part, it's all we the people. Not just one person signs a bill around here... The declaration of Independance has multiple signatures on it.\n\n(would someone just tell that to our current President?)\n\nThe consititution is the closest thing we have to a "book of rules". Even that was put together and signed by multiple people from 12 different states:\n\nGEO WASHINGTON-- 1st Presidt. \n[Signed also by the deputies of twelve States.] \nJohn Langdon\nNicholas Gilman \nGeo. Read\nGunning Bedford jun\nJohn Dickinson\nRichard Bassett\nJacob Broom \nNathaniel Gorham\nRufus King \nJames MCHenry\nDan. of St. Thos. Jenifer\nDanl. Carroll \nWm. Saml. Johnson\nRoger Sherman \nAlexander Hamilton \nJohn Blair--\nJames Madison Jr. \nWil. Livingston\nDavid Brearley.\nWm. Paterson.\nJona. Dayton \nWm. Blount\nRichd. Dobbs Spaight.\nHu Williamson \nB. Franklin\nThomas Mifflin\nRobt. Morris\nGeo. Clymer\nThos. FitzSimons\nJared Ingersoll\nJames Wilson\nGouv Morris \nJ. Rutledge\nCharles Cotesworth Pinckney\nCharles Pinckney\nPierce Butler \nWilliam Few\nAbr Baldwin \nWilliam Jackson, Secretary
94440
They sure do.When the U.S. Constitution recognizes the right to the trial by jury, it provides the common law trial by jury. This applies to both criminal law and to civil law suits "according to the rules of the common law" as specified by the Seventh Amendment.
1084363
A little note on the particulars of lawmaking and judgments (which are NOT the same).  The creation of laws is done by the legislative branch (ie. Congress or Administrative Agencies - whose legitimacy can be debated as well).  The interpretation of laws is done by the Judicial Branch (ie. judges, ultimately the Supreme Court).  \n\nThere are several types of law in the United States, which is followed from the ancestors from England...Common Law, Natural Law, positive Law, Administrative Law, Ordinances, State Law,  and Constitutional Law.  Most people have no idea how these all fit together.  BASICALLY....\n\nWhen an entity (usually a person) appeals a case to the United States Supreme Court, and it is accepted for review by the Court, the parties are arguing points of law, not whether something happened or not.  In reviewing a case, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are supposed to use above all else for their considerations the United States Constitution - the SUPREME law of this land.  (This is how if something is found unconstitutional, the case is over becuase it is by nature illegal.)  \n\nThe Constitution however is viewed through the lenses of human eyes that have had experiences and posses hidden motives.  These are what move a Justice to decide one or another.  \n\n(In regards to a precedent....this applies to Common Law only, which is the lowest forms of law in this country.  All that a precedent is, is a way another Justice at some level decided in a particular region.  That is, if an Alabama judge decided a case for a certain reason...other Alabama judges would be expected to find the same decision in similar cases.  This precedent would not at all apply to courts in Colorado or Maine or...any other state.  Precedents are most similar to ordinances - "don't do that because we have realized it causes harm to many.")
1139054
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
556198
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It created a federal union of sovereign states, and a federal government to operate that union. It replaced the less well-defined union that existed under the Articles of Confederation.\n\nDuring the Revolutionary War, the thirteen states first formed a very weak central government—with the Congress being its only component—under the Articles of Confederation. Congress lacked any power to impose taxes, and, because there was no national executive or judiciary, it relied on state authorities, who were often uncooperative, to enforce all its acts. It also had no authority to override tax laws and tariffs between states. The Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before they could be amended and states took the central government so lightly that their representatives were often absent. For lack of a quorum, Congress was frequently blocked from making even moderate changes.
664995
actually, American law is based on English Common law.\n\nThe Bill of Rights are drawn from several sources including the Magna Carta, not just from the 10 commandments.
14924
The U.S. Constitution is the basis for all law in the U.S.  It describes the how the government of the Unitied States operates.  It also grants people certain rights.\n\nOf course, the present administration has great contempt for the Constitution.
1181374
"The Constitution nowhere contains an express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances. Yet, it does grant to three separate branches the powers to legislate, to execute, and to adjudicate,"\n\nGo read the rest....
969564
The Founding Fathers built checks and balances into our system of government,but the constitution was based on the Bible. Diversity is a correlative, but not a cause.
34437
the magna carta was a treaty i believe between the king of england and the nobels of england.  you should google it.  common laws are laws made by the court through court decisions.  before there were legislatures (congress, parliment, etc) courts had the authority to makes laws.  If a man and a woman lived together like 8 years (i think its 8) then they are considered married under common law.  no marriage necessary.
142460
No -- the law already provides means for the President to act in emergencies.  Claiming the right to do anything at all in "wartime" in furtherance of "national security" -- including the sole right to define "wartime" and "national security" is extremely dangerous.  Even with checks and balances in place this country has jailed pacifists (not draft resisters, simply opponents of WW 1) and imprisoned citizens of Japanese descent -- for no reason other than their race.  It will be far worse if no checks of law or balances from the courts and Congress remain.
231026
SEVENTH AMENDMENT\n"In Suits at common law," - this phrase usually means actions in common law, which are usually things like lawsuits for money or old English actions that we'd consider "law."  It comes in the form of an order from the court.  This is opposed to "equity," which includes things like an injunction or a constructive trust, some kind of alternative remedy from the court.  (This is a difficult legal area, since in the United States law and equity were merged in the 1930s.  They're still distinct in the 7th Amendment.)\n\n"where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars," - a minimal threshold amount that is almost meaningless today, but still applies.\n\n"the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," - this applies ONLY to the federal government and has NEVER been yet incorporated against the states.  So, if you have an action at common law (not in equity) greater than $20 in federal court, you are guaranteed a jury.\n\n"and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." - the jury is the final fact-finder, and a judge or some other court cannot change the jury's verdict.  The only exceptions are the old historical allowances from "the common law," which are complex and relatively rare.\n\nIn simpler layman's terms, for most civil cases (someone suing someone else), a jury trial is guaranteed if wanted, and the findings of the jury can rarely be overturned\n\nNINTH AMENDMENT\n"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - when James Madison urged for ratifying the Constitution WITHOUT a Bill of Rights, he was concerned that a Bill of Rights might harm freedom.  The Constitution was one of "enumerated powers, where government could only do what the Constitution says it can (for example, the Constitution lets the government raise an army in Article I section 8, but it does not let the government regulate guns in schools).  Madison thought listing rights might make the government act like it could do ANYTHING EXCEPT what those rights were (for example, government could control EVERYTHING, as long as it didn't harm the freedom of speech and other listed freedoms).\n\nThe Bill of Rights listed rights of the people, but the 9th Amendment was meant to ensure that the Constitution still remained one of enumerated powers.  The fact that a bunch of rights were listed didn't mean that government could do anything.  Government was still restrained by what the Constitution allowed it to do.  The Bill of Rights, though, was an extra level of protection for individuals.\n\nEDIT: While Justice Goldberg in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) made the argument that the 9th Amendment contained the right to privacy, this argument has been universally rejected by the Court.  In Roe v. Wade (1973), the majority of the court found that the right to privacy was found in the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment.  No one today accepts Justice Goldberg's argument regarding the 9th Amendment.
760799
Are you talking about the English Magna Carta or the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the USA.???\nIt is confusing.
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
466373
Depends on the kind of law you're talking about.\n\nIn the United States, some laws are "federal" and enforced at the national level.  Others are "state", "county", or "city" and are variously called statutes, ordinances, codes, and so on, depending on their usage.\n\nThen there is "common law" which is law based on what is commonly accepted at the time and is NOT set down in writing.  Most common law is now codified into regular law, but it may be that some states still allow "common law" marriages, for example.
802687
The Constitution is.  No law shall be higher than the Constitution.  The Constitution overrides all laws (local, state, federal), and anything that's amended to it automatically becomes so.