Bio not provided
One final note. Research says Michael is right - no due process. But, southerners bekieved none was necessary because of the constitutional guarntee of return. The slave himself had no due process rights because he was the property absconded with.as well as the perpetrator.
2 years, 11 months ago on An Effective Method to Restore Due Process
Thank you, Michael. Appreciate the exchange. We definitely agree on the modern application of the principle today.
All you needed to do was say "That black person is my property" - and they'd be yours...whether you were telling the truth or not.
Not so! The magistrate had to make a decision & the owner had to give a description of his property. The provision for both possibilities was in the law. $5 for a release, $10 for a return. Due process was followed. In fact to allow for escape without a hearing (Underground railroad) was an abrogation of process. Remember slaves were property.
The constitution specifically provides for the return of runaway slaves. Article 4, Section 2 "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due," Nullification must respond to unconstitutional acts or edicts not unpopular or even unjust. For proper understanding of state sovereignty, one can usdually look southward!
I think that the "free illegal alien" zones are probably good examples of nullification, but for a wrong cause. The nullification sword cuts both ways. Would need to bone up on the issue. Matbe the Alien & Sedition Acts themselves are a place to stazrt.
Not a good historical example of nullification. Article 4 Section 2 says: " No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." Especially in light of what the cited states did in the following conflict with the ultimate nullification, called secession, not the best of historical examples. The modern applcation is right on the money, however.
A gentleman on the 10th Amendment Center blog stated quite accurately the difference between nullification & civil disobedience. A person calling himself Alex Hamilton said:
Civil disobedience and nullification are different and unrelated. Civil disobedience is not a constitutional doctrine; rather, it's a moral doctrine. Civil disobedience is not something a state government does as a matter of constitutional interpretation; rather, it's something an individual does as a matter of conscience. Civil disobedience is not a legal remedy; rather, it's a moral action with no legal basis. Civil disobedience does not purport to nullify the law; rather, a person engaging in civil disobedience submits to the law and takes the full consequences.
Nullification is a constitutional doctrine in which a state purports to nullify a federal law that it views as unconstitutional. It is an act of defiance, as the state contends that the law does not apply to it or its citizens. Nullification is based on legal and constitutional considerations and it is undertaken by a state government. Civil disobedience is a moral doctrine in which an individual disobeys a morally unjust law. It is an act of protest, not defiance. One who engages in civil disobedience does not challenge the validity of the law, but the morality of the law. He or she does not purport to nullify that law, but submits to the law. It is a completely different concept.
Unfortunately, Dr. King used the moral tactic of civil disobedience to advance the cause of federal supremacy over state & local government. The communist riddled so called “civil rights” movement ended what little federalism remained. Known communist Hunter Pitts O’Dell & many other “activists” , including “seamstress” Rosa Parks were trained at the left wing communist training school called the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. Dr. King, who advocated for the defeat of our troops in South Vietnam by the Viet Cong, believed in and advocated raw political power by federal authorities (with guns) to accomplish his purposes at state owned universities & schools. He lacked the moral authority to lead a “moral cause” as well as an understanding of the Constitution or the 10th amendment. He plagiarized his doctoral thesis, his sexual mores were somewhere between Ted Kennedy & an alley cat & he deliberately goaded legitimate authorities into overreacting & advancing his cause.
No, MLK & his anarchistic, Leninist movement is no hero to tenthers, in fact no hero at all!
Carl Edwards – Pennsylvania
2 years, 11 months ago on Free at Last! Martin Luther King and Nullification