The right to life and constitutional law.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Furthermore, if you have an inalienable right to life means that you have a natural right and not a monarch given right, how can that right be taken away by society? .

Citizens owe fealty to the sov, in a monarchy thats the king, in the federal republic thats the state.

The Sov body takes from individuals, when they brake the contract, subject to the law.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


No they're not. I've never heard Blackstone quoted once during my 12 years with the court.

Moreover, IIRC, Blackstone advocated in the case of accidents that each party should pay for his or her own injury. Such a position, if adopted, would have put most plaintiff attorneys out of work.

Very important in UK, its the root of all Uk fundamental law, as it was also decided in Canada to be the root of Candian fundamemtal law when its SC rulled a conditional right of secesion to exist in canadian fundamental law, which is also Blackstones work.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Supposedly it also kept Maryland in the union. They'd been thinking of switching sides, but suddenly they were faced with a proclaimation freeing the slaves in the territories in rebellion...it gave them pause.

No, the legislature of Maryland was in jail for calling a ordinance of secesion.

[Nickiow]

You are just upset that I've upset your carefully crafted mythology.

I dont see that, i see he is upset your uniformed on your own nations history and law.

If Lincoln really cared about the slaves, why exactly did the EP apply to where he didn't have any authority? You keep dodging that point. He freed the slaves in areas OUTSIDE of Union controll! In areas he had no soveriegnty over! Now why would he carefully construct the document that way?

Your what called a layer in the US?.

The EP only applied to those parts in rebelion because Congress had passed the confiscation acts that made it lawfull to take human proprty from indiviuals who were in the state of insurection, or refused to take the loyalty oath from them, in law the EP could only be put into effect on where congress had passed those laws, in the Border states anyone taking the loyalty oath could apply for and get compensation for hhis slave lost to doing either mil or agricultural work, limit of 300$, what the EP said was anyone else as an individual can obtain the same, as no state was outside the Union and secesion is the act of individuals

Could it be for political reasons?! Nah.. that couldn't be it. Lincoln really wanted to free all the slaves, but.. uh... forgot to put the Union controlled areas in it... right??

The political reason was that the war dept and the JCCOTW kept telling him and congress thatv the reason the war was done and dusted was that the institionof slavery was allowing a 4:1 white population advatge to be withstood by use of negros. fredmans burea gave 2,000,000 negros in mil/agricultural use by the south.

Licoln removed a para from the EP which called for the negros to rise up in arms against their masters and replaced it with a more aceptable phrase, because of the impact it would have on world opinion.

Before the EP he put to congress a compensation bill for the border states, congress rejects it, only DC slaves were freed and recompsense payed because as pres he could do that for DC due to way VA had cedded the land tenure.


So the political reason for the EP was that it allowed a mil victory, and had very little influence in europe at all, PM being very dismissive of it.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Black slaves ran to union lines. Where their status was unclear, and a matter of heated dispute. Some union officers actually wanted to return them. Some wanted to use them, while holding them in trust for their owners, IIUC. Some wanted to distinguish between those who had fled pro-union and pro-confed owners. Fremont, who wanted to consider them all free, got into trouble for his stance.

The EP meant that all would be considered free, forever, and this was an important change in union policy.

FSA was nullified by congress, in may 61, any officer returning any negro faced a court martial for doing so.

Banks in april 61 in Ft Monroe took and held negros as contraband of war, asked for guidence if this was legal anbd congress passed a series of laws, firstly any negro from a citizen in rebelion vcould be withheld if the nogro was ingaged in aiding the rebelion, then all negros of any citizen in rebelion.

EP does not free anyone, it says that if in 60 days you return to the Union, your slaves are still yours, and can only be taken from yoy by an amendment, since 2/3 would be required and the border states and Ohio, Indiana and others vote against compensation to end slavery by compensation, its not clear that if in 62 the CSA returned that congress could end slavery by an amendment.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by MrFun
Another point about Lincoln's change over time in regards to race -- he corresponded with, and spoke with black figures as equals -- also, he became the first president in U.S. history to invite blacks to the White House as dignified equals.

Lincon evolution from ambivalence to high regard to negros is a wonder to follow when you read a bio of him.

Blacks could not enter bceasue the law prhibited them from doing so, federal law prevented them from carrying the mail, and a lot of other such stuff.

[Nickiow]

"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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 abolish it, and institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'


It follows then that these rights are listed in the governments laws, so the first place to look is in state constitions, and then the federal Constition that applies to all members of the Union of states, if its not in the Federal constition then its not a delegated right and is reserved to the states constitions. Anyone not in agreement?.



RHODE ISLAND`s ratification of the constiton includes:-
"1. That there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social Compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, — among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

IX. That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the trial by jury, or by the laws of the land.



Anyone unclear as to RI posistion?.



XIV was used earlier, and it refers back to matters already expressed in first clause artIV sec 2 "privalges and imunities", and that itself comes from the AOC fourth article.

In Corfield v Coryell 1823 B Washington rulled that these were the limited to the fundamental rights which belong to the several states from the time of their independence unde Republican constitions at the time of the revolution, and not to oyster fishing for all. slaughterhouse case also has some input on this, unenmrerated right to protection from monoplies except for copyright and patents for instance.

A Hamilton in the 84th fedralist list the absolute rights of individuals, under the constition, he cities them from Blackstone "the right to life, liberty, reputation, due process of law, writ of HC, bringing suit in a court of justice, petinioning the government for redresse of grievence, the right to bear arms."

Pretty much ends the matter, or not....