How old is a tradition?

[Archangel]

Anglo-American common law is law created by the courts and is followed as precedence, as opposed to statutory law created by legislative bodies. I really doubt that any court would come up with a holding that "anything twice done becomes a tradition."

There is no such thing as Anglo American "common law". Two separate countries sharing an arbitrary law structure, highly unlikely don't you think?

I'm not even sure that America, the U.S., has such a thing as "common law". I have the feeling that part of the uprising in 1766 was to get rid of that.

The UK does, although that is being reduced. It's still strong in Scotland's law. I hope somebody in the UK can update us on that.

You can google it to find the references, I did, successfully.

In any case, this is taking us away from the topic and the point of my original post.

To paraphrase Monty Python: contradiction/challenge (tracking your posts today) is not conversation. The debate paradigm says that you should posit your counter, i.e. provide where in British law tradition is defined. Then I defend my statement, etc. That way we both learn something.

Your call, until then, I'm "standing down" and not getting drawn in further.

[Kid Cossack]

There is no such thing as Anglo American "common law". Two separate countries sharing an arbitrary law structure, highly unlikely don't you think?

I'm not even sure that America, the U.S., has such a thing as "common law". I have the feeling that part of the uprising in 1766 was to get rid of that.

The UK does, although that is being reduced. It's still strong in Scotland's law. I hope somebody in the UK can update us on that.

You can google it to find the references, I did, successfully.

In any case, this is taking us away from the topic and the point of my original post.

To paraphrase Monty Python: contradiction/challenge (tracking your posts today) is not conversation. The debate paradigm says that you should posit your counter, i.e. provide where in British law tradition is defined. Then I defend my statement, etc. That way we both learn something.

Your call, until then, I'm "standing down" and not getting drawn in further.

I could give two flips about how long it takes to create a tradition, but there is, or was, a thing called Anglo-American common law. I don't think it existed in England (where they probably just called it "common law" or even "our common law" or perhaps even "English common law" if they were going to draw a distinction between it and American common law), but it really did exist in America.

For all of the early fractiousness between (independent) America and the United Kingdom, we were/are, to a real degree, your children. To pick only one extraneous example, the mess nights I attended in the USMC probably differed only around the edges from mess nights in the Royal Marines.

While we split off from English common law long enough ago to qualify as a different sub-species, we did still spring from the same roots. Several of my professors at law school used the term "Anglo-American common law."

Now, common law is increasingly being replaced in America, as well, with codes and statutory law but well up into the 20th century American jurisprudence was shaped to a very real degree by the common law that had developed in the United Kingdom/Great Britain.

[Archangel]

I could give two flips about how long it takes to create a tradition, but there is, or was, a thing called Anglo-American common law. I don't think it existed in England (where they probably just called it "common law" or even "our common law" or perhaps even "English common law" if they were going to draw a distinction between it and American common law), but it really did exist in America.

For all of the early fractiousness between (independent) America and the United Kingdom, we were/are, to a real degree, your children. To pick only one extraneous example, the mess nights I attended in the USMC probably differed only around the edges from mess nights in the Royal Marines.

While we split off from English common law long enough ago to qualify as a different sub-species, we did still spring from the same roots. Several of my professors at law school used the term "Anglo-American common law."

Now, common law is increasingly being replaced in America, as well, with codes and statutory law but well up into the 20th century American jurisprudence was shaped to a very real degree by the common law that had developed in the United Kingdom/Great Britain.

Yes, you are right. I have just realized that, in between my post and yours, I made a fundamental error.

The terms have not been defined.

"Common law" has a number of meanings and applications which are too complex for me, really. The US does use a form of "common law" and shares its origins with the British system.

So, I'm still okay with my statements except refer to Kid Cossack for the US model.

[MacWage]

FYI: Gilmore was a lawyer before his present religious life.

(Mike, I am NOT entering or trying reengage the debate, just adding info on one of the persons.)

Back to topic:
The notion of "what is tradition" is one that has been hotly debated in times past and present. If you note carefully, in the film "Tunes of Glory," the question of whether the actions and "new" traditions from World War 2 are part of or an aversion from "the tradition of the regiment."

It comes down to when something began and how long it takes before the partakers feel that such is the way it "should be." My family is developing "new traditions" for my kids. These traditions are actually a blending of my family's traditions and my wife's family traditions. For example, Christmas morning in my house growing up Santa left presents in a large pile, each in its own place (mine was on the "the big leather chair") neatly arranged as a display and unwrapped. Anna's family would open wrapped presents from Santa, that were left under the tree. Now Kiwi and Wilson are seeing Santa leaving piles of wrapped presents, each in its own place. When they grow up, it will be part of their tradition, though it is now only a couple years old.

(Also note: the first posts of this thread was from mid-2005. I wonder if the thoughts of the early posters has changed, remained the same, or been reinforced.)

[Ayin McFye]

(Also note: the first posts of this thread was from mid-2005. I wonder if the thoughts of the early posters has changed, remained the same, or been reinforced.)

I agree. I would like to see some of the original members who posted to this forum 2 years ago reply to see if they still hold their views to be the same.

I have a side note i'd like to ask regarding this topic.

If one person starts a tradition and does it for 10 years and does it on a daily basis, and then someone sees them doing that "tradition" and does it for 5 years, does the person doing it for only 5 years have any less right to that tradition?

[Alan H]

The's also the notion of how thorougly I am "connected" to a tradition.

For example, my actual Scottish Ancestry, and by that I mean ancestors that I know are directly descended from immigrants from Scotland, date back to the 1770's. In other words, it's no "me" that's "Scottish"...or my parents or my grandparents. No, it's John McKNight, who emigrated from Ulster in 1730, or John Bryson, whose mother was Scottish, but of unknown origin, as of 1756.

Ever since then, all of my ancestors except my Swedish, maternal g-grandfather, and my French-Canadian paternal grandfather were born on US Soil. so my Scottish connections are mighty thin.

Does this mean, therefore, that I am less connected to...and perhaps less obliged to observe certain traditions regarding the wearing of kilts, etc?

Another way to say this would be..... Is it more onerous if a "real" Scotsman ...someone actually living in Scotland right now, with Scottish family roots going back several generations... "incorrectly" wore a kilt, than if some person from the USA with distant and faint roots to Scottish ancestry, incorrectly wears the kilt?

[gilmore]

There is no such thing as Anglo American "common law". Two separate countries sharing an arbitrary law structure, highly unlikely don't you think?

I'm not even sure that America, the U.S., has such a thing as "common law". I have the feeling that part of the uprising in 1766 was to get rid of that.

The UK does, although that is being reduced. It's still strong in Scotland's law. I hope somebody in the UK can update us on that.

You can google it to find the references, I did, successfully.


....

I love it when lay people attempt to come up with legal opinions. It's what keeps attorneys in business.

The American colonies and the UK shared a legal tradition until 1776. That traditon is called Anglo-American common law. US law still follows the precedence of opinions written before that date. Very ocassionally they are still cited.

BTW I googled "anything twice done becomes a tradition" and found nothing.

[Mike1]

And this is where the 'legal' discussion ends.

Want to discuss law? Go find a legal forum. This is a kilt forum, 'nuff said?