In a message dated 1/16/2009 8:45:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
True enough, because you can't repeal what was never in the law in the first place.>>
--------------------------- Whether or not it was part of Common Law is exactly the issue. You have to read up on the doctrine here _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow)
Note how the "doctrine" is viewed in England. Or at least as presented here. It should be apparent that the doctrine was treated as an implicit part of US law until recently. That is why, you see, it wound up at the Supreme Court in the first place. To reconcile conflicting issues with the treatment of this implicit doctrine.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/2009 8:45:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
True enough, because you can't repeal what was never in the law in the first place.>>
Whether or not it was part of Common Law is exactly the issue. You have to read up on the doctrine here _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow)
Note how the "doctrine" is viewed in England. Or at least as presented here. It should be apparent that the doctrine was treated as an implicit part of US law until recently. That is why, you see, it wound up at the Supreme Court in the first place. To reconcile conflicting issues with the treatment of this implicit doctrine.
Declaring a common law practice no longer valid is different from the statutory repeal of a statutory provision.
Ec