Slave codes section

FOR PERSONAL USE:

slaves were treated as a sort of “conscious commodity”. A master could be charged with neglect if the slave was not fed enough or otherwise rendered to a state where they could no longer work. However, this did not prevent the slave master from beating or abusing the slave in any way they saw fit, only from doing it to “excess”. The only other “protection” would be a slave being returned to the slave master if the slave were found outside of the owner’s property.   if a slave traveled more than 10 miles from the owner’s property without a note, they would be apprehended and returned. If someone (slave or free man) convinced a slave to run away, and the slave did, the person who convinced them would have to pay the price of the slave to the owner to make up for the “lost property”.  if the slave did anything illegal, the slave was held responsible, though not the owner. This means that if an owner ordered a slave to commit an illegal act, threatened with death if they did not comply, then the slave would still be punished since the slave master can claim that they never gave any such order to the slave. The only way that a slave master could be held accountable for their act is if the slave owner confessed to the court, which would rationally never happen. if a free man tried to smuggle slaves out of the colonies on their boat without an official release note from the owner, the free man would be fined and the slaves returned to the master.  if a slave was punished, it was brutal and physical (e.g. slicing off their ear or being lashed), whereas a free person would only be fined. This fine would either be a flat fine (such as five pounds or shillings) or a fine based on the length of time the slave was absent in order to make up for the time that they could have been working.  if the slave were trained in economics, they could be entrusted with the master’s financial documents and allowed to handle the master’s financial affairs, but nothing else. The master would then be liable for what they call upon the slave to do so long as the master testifies to giving the slave that permission (which, as stated earlier, is a testimony that may never happen if the master wanted to avoid punishment). These types of laws were typically derived from Roman law where slaves would be trained and educated in certain fields in order to serve the master in those respective fields.  slaves were held under incredible oppression from every possible angle. Slave masters were “entitled” to their “property” and granted protection of that “property”, whereas slaves were taught through harsh treatment that they were nothing more than “property” and not human beings. This way of living circulated the system of having white, land owning men as the highest class of society and enslaved african men and women as the lowest class, as well as enforcing unto other members of society that this was “the correct and justified way of living.”

Courtesy of case study, and Agrusti.

MLK and equal rights blog/vlog

This is the written version of the group vlog in which I recorded for my segment.

 

For this first video log, team 4 will be discussing the laws that were around during the time of Martin Luther King Jr. Specifically laws that promoted equality and removed any form of segregation from existence. A very important act that resonated during the time of Martin Luther King Jr., was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act prohibits discrimination against sex, race, religion, and national origin. The passing of this act ended the harsh Jim Crow laws which were basically racial segregation laws. Employees are protected against this act in regards to sex, race, religion, and national origin. They are also protected against retaliation against their employers for acting against them if they were to file a discrimination complaint based on those topics.

 

 

Revised

Case Study brief Ableman v. Booth 1858

Facts of the Case 

Sherman Booth petitioned a local court judge for the release of Joshua Glover, a runaway slave held in federal custody in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Though the federal authorities did not accept the judge's order, a mob eventually freed Glover. Booth was charged with aiding the escape of a runaway slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Booth then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for his release, through a writ of habeas corpus. Booth was then convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin and detained again. Booth again petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for his release, alleging that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional and that the Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction. Booth was again released by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question 

Did the Supreme Court of Wisconsin have the authority to issue the writs of habeas corpus that released Booth?

Conclusion 

No. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court asserted the supremacy of federal courts on issues of federal law. The Court dismissed Wisconsin's claim of judicial power, since "it certainly has not been conferred on them by the United States; and it is equally clear it was not in the power of the State to confer it." Chief Justice Taney relied on the Constitution in that it is "the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby." While the state courts of Wisconsin certainly did have authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to cases where the prisoner was held by the state of Wisconsin, the authority did not extend to prisoners held by the federal government.

 

 

Courtesy of Oyez.

Case Study #2 & Vlogs

This post is to keep you guys up to date on our next Case Study.

It will be due March 7th (10-11 days from now) and is on the case of Ableman v Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1858).

This will be built using the first 6 chapters of Dworkin's 1986 book Law's Empire. It will include:

1. A short abstract - gives a brief overview of our entire paper/argument
2. Opening section - discusses the key points in the case and how they relate to our argument
3. Analytical Section - section that discusses Dworkin's take on the case, using the chapters to demonstrate this
4. Review section - section that criticizes Dworkin's take on it and discusses more of our team's argument, either using the counter argument to strengthen our position, or playing Devil's Advocate to strengthen our position. 

Personally, I feel most comfortable donating a good portion of the review section since I love tearing philosophers apart and typically read with a red pen in hand. However, this overall a group effort, and it is each of our responsibilities to give a fair share to this project.

If you have any questions or concerns, leave them as a comment to this post. 

In respects to the Vlogs, I have finished my bit and Nik has finished hers. We just need the last two video segments so I can edit them together and submit them. 

Overall, our top three priorities of this week are:

1. Finish your respective papers

2. Read Ch. 1 - 6 of Dworkin's book

3. Read and make notes on the case study mentioned above. 

We will discuss these things as a team in greater detail on Wednesday.  

Dworkin and Natural Law

Over the next two weeks I will be reading the first few chapters of Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire and seeing how it stands on the concept of Natural Law. Several of the philosophers in our class discussions and readings have spoken on Natural Law, and there have been many historical philosophers in history to speak on it as well. The prototypical philosophers for Natural Law are St. Thomas Aquinas (who spoke on it heavily in the Summa Theologica) and Immanuel Kant (who tried to redeem it through "universal reason").

My aim in this is to find a redeemable form of Natural Law that is not grounded in a theological foundation. Aquinas, Kant, Locke and King justify their beliefs in a universal law based on their Christian beliefs, but also testify that there are principles outside of religious thinking that can be used to justify their moral mechanisms. I will be looking at these secular principles and constructing an argument for natural law in this light.

However, if my studies reveal that it is impossible or highly improbable that a natural law can work in a secular manner, than I will explore the reasons why this is. I will also be using Dworkin's perspectives on Law and how this plays into our judiciary system, as many principles of law either consciously ground themselves in "desirable principles" (such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), or subconsciously ground them in dogmatism (e.g. how gay marriage is "unnatural" or "undermines the values of traditional marriage").

Trolley problem 2 and human rights

The second Trolley problem proves to be the most difficult of all. From changing the age ranges of the people, to even taking a play on race, it proves to be a rather tough call to choose life over death.

Trolley Problem 2:



In this situation it is your choice to either pull the lever to the right or left in efforts to spare lives. Which way would you pull the lever?

Many people say to pull it so that the one individual is ultimately killed. The question then comes, is their life not as valuable as the others because it's one person versus five?

Now let's change the situation a little, say that all of the individuals on the tracks were newborn babies. YES, now you're beginning to see my point! It doesn't matter who you pull the switch for it's wrong on all levels because you are depriving them of their rights that were given to them by nature and the ones that were created, human rights.

The coexisting of both is essential in today's society because they equally create the foundation in which we ALL stand on.

Human rights and the Trolley problem 1

When it comes to a matter of life and death and you have the option of choosing either, what would you do?

There's a very popular situation called the Trolley problem. There are two situations that I would like to take a closer look at since I'm discussing human rights.

Keep in mind that EVERY individual is granted the freedom of life, liberty, while having the right to be free of torture.

Trolley Problem 1:

There's a trolley coming on its normal path and you notice that there are five individuals defenselessly tied to the tracks begging for help. You're standing above on a bridge alongside a heavier set individual of whom you are behind and they don't notice you. What do you do in this instance?

Most people would say to just push that individual over the bridge in efforts to stop the trolley but this is rather inhumane, in fact I feel as though this is a form of torture. This person has a RIGHT to be free of torture of any form especially if it can be prevented. The best answer for this situation would be to simply throw yourself off of the bridge that way the burden of guilt of intentionally killing someone isn't in existence.

Human rights and just war?

Prisoners of war are absolutely human beings but when it comes to war, are their rights to be waived?

Understanding that war brings in different rules and perspectives. Once a terrorist is captive, should their human rights sort of revert back to them regardless of the crime that they may have committed? Or should they be treated as inhumane savages who should be shown no mercy?

Personally, I feel as though they should be treated as human beings first. There's no justice in attacking those individuals even if committed a very absurd crime. You allow the human law to come into play, which will prosecute them as it see's fit. Torture and things of that nature does nothing but prove that the human laws of life are flawed and need to be adjusted for the greater good of ALL.

In war, there's a different set of rules as I mentioned. Civilians aren't to be targeted, unless they are willing prevented the target from being captured. Say they have weapons or equipment that further prolongs your duty as a soldier from properly doing your job and your life is now in danger. Are those civilians now targets, or do they still play the noncombatant role when it comes to human rights?

Human Rights

For my own reference I feel as though I need to write down the basic human rights or laws. The bill of rights of course, is the best source to do so. (http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-human-rights.html)

• The right to life
• The right to liberty and freedom
• The right to the pursuit of happiness
• The right to live your life free of discrimination
• The right to control what happens to your own body and to make medical decisions for yourself
• The right to freely exercise your religion and practice your religious beliefs without fear of being prosecuted for your beliefs
• The right to be free from prejudice on the basis of race, gender, national origin, color, age or sex
• The right to grow old
• The right to a fair trial and due process of the law
• The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
• The right to be free from torture
• The right to be free from slavery
• The right to freedom of speech
• The right to freely associate with whomever you like and to join groups of which you'd like to be a part.
• The right to freedom of thought
• The right not to be prosecuted from your thoughts

Human law and natural law: The two basic laws

A bird eating a worm, and a dog chasing a cat are examples of natural law. The existence of human interference isn't necessary when it comes to these divine laws. This is the way of the world, and it simply can not be altered in any way.

Imprisonment for committing a crimes and receiving tickets for driving over the speed limit are examples of human law or common law. These were created to keep a coexistent balance with the laws that already were in existence to control and regulate the common good of everyone as a whole.

With natural law it's best to think of law that is similar to already knowing what is right and what is wrong. However, this will then come in conflict with human law because some individuals lack the mental capacity to decipher what is right and wrong. Which in return, causes them to go out and do rather unlawful things. Human law understands these developmental delays or issues and doesn't solely hold those individuals at fault.

A toddler wouldn't be held at fault if he/she was to break a very expensive toy. It's a common understanding that the younger the child is, the harder it is for them to understand that they have to be gentle with certain toys. They don't understand the expense that was placed into that item because that common sense hasn't been developed yet within their minds. They are protected by human laws that generalize children as growing up and learning right from wrong.

Human Law

Is human law similar to natural law, with emphasis on it particular pertaining to a human being ?

I certainly believe it is when you're taking something that is naturally given, and manipulating it to one's on benefit to relate to human beings.

Human law or rights by definition is "Man-made law is law that is made by human beings. It is a concept that is usually considered in opposition to concepts like natural law or divine law". In this instance, things such as taxes or tariffs are considered to be human law or rights which benefits the human.

These human laws were set in place in efforts to confirm a deeper more complex level of laws when it comes to incorporating natural law that can not be changed. To me, it's almost as if it's simply an extension to make it seem more relatable or to generalize it for the greater good.

Natural Law

When it comes to deciphering what natural law is, it should pop up  pretty quickly within our minds.

 By definition, it is "a  body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law". These laws or rights are in fact God-given and can not and/or should not be taking away from anyone. It is more-so a universal understanding that these laws are the highest and can not be altered in anyway.

I'd say an example of natural law would be comparing it to Newton's laws of physics. These laws are simply explaining why things occur the way that they do. They aren't changing any physic motions, it's simply reinforcing the reasons why things behave the way that they do. 

It's understood that what goes up must come down. By physics this can be explained by Newton's laws. Without physics however, it can be explained by using natural law. 

Some thoughts on Natural Law

The phrase “natural law” is very vague in my opinion. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the essential claims of the two types of theory are logically independent.

As I read some of the readings of Thomas Aquinas, I realized he focuses more on the overlap between legal theories and natural law moral theories. He is very well known on his philosophies of Classical Natural Law Theories.

When I would discuss my opinions on his theories, it reminded me much of Aristotle’s theory. As I did more research, I read that Thomas shadows Aristotle in thinking that “an act is good or bad depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from our proper human end—the telos or final goal at which all human actions aim.”

Moral Code play a big part in “natural law.” From what I know, “natural law” is a moral code that pertains to all human beings. The name comes from the faith and belief that there’s a moral code essential the world in general and humanity. God is normally recognized for making and imposing the world to this moral code.

The theory of “Natural law” has its problems. It really weakens the diversity found in many different races, cultures, religions, faiths and beliefs. Reason being is because many peoples beliefs are very strong and the natural code gets in the way of that.

Children vs Adults- Psychological approach on philosophical law

As you may already know, everyone ages and matures differently. Age is nothing but a number in my opinion. I know people who are in there late 20’s and people who are in their early 20’s and the younger ones are more mature and hold a better mental capacity than the older ones.

On the other hand, children are more mediocre to people who are older then them. Therefore, children shouldn’t be compared to adults since they obviously don’t hold as much intelligence and mental capacity like other crowd does. When it comes down to the neurological stages, children’s age ranges conclude their standing. Most children are incapable of figuring out what’s good or bad or what’s right and wrong. Being a child once myself, I can tell you I myself was like that too. That’s why most of the mistakes you make in your lifetime are made when you were younger because you just didn’t know any better. Looking back at it, I realize that when I was younger I always thought I knew everything and knew right from wrong. But as I got older I started to see that I was just so child-like and naïve to the fact that, ‘no I didn’t know right from wrong,’ and unfortunately, I was always ignorant and oblivious.

The only reason I’m discussing my naïve childhood is to prove a point. That children shouldn’t be help accountable for things that they aren’t in total control over. For example, way back in the day there were many cases where children were being faced with charges, even death penalty! It boggles my mind how harsh our world was back in the day and it doesn’t make any sense to me that these children were getting punished so cruelly. Children don’t have the same mental capacity as adults and that’s why they are called “children” in the first place. In a psychological point of view, children being held responsible for issues they basically have no control over is absurd. Sadly, it took many cases and years later for them to realize that the brain of children/ minors aren’t fully developed like adults. It took about 70 years for them to finally conclude that children aren’t psychologically all there and they finally eliminated the death penalties for children.

Slave Codes

The thought of slave codes really breaks my heart. As you may already know, slavery itself, in my opinion, had to be one of the cruelest issues in our whole lifetime. Just reading more about it, is really starting to open my eyes more on how brutal life must have been. Not only a brutal life for the slaves, but also for the people who wanted freedom for the slaves.

I find it mind boggling that if you actually persuaded a slave to run away, you would be help accountable for disbursing the owner for the cost of that slave. Also, you could be arrested if you tried to “smuggle” the slaves out of the state. 

The even more disturbing thing about this all is how it isn’t only a part of our past, but still even a part of our present. For example, like Thomas mentioned, the people of China and North Korea face a similar mistreatment if they raise their thoughts against the norm.

The laws that we face with today are laws that have you afraid to speak your mind or opinion because you’re fearful of becoming punished or arrested. Being an American Muslim myself, there are always protests going on about freeing our countries and to try to prove to the world we are not terrorists just because of 9/11. I would love to go to a protest and fight for my rights, but I chose to stay out of trouble just in case I were to get arrested or get fined, then what would I do? This has also made me not as passionate about the situation I have to go through everyday being a Muslim living in America. For example, when Hitler did the horrible things he did, no one pointed fingers or thought people of his kind were all cruel and terrorists, so why do they think that of us?

Islam is against terrorism or hurting anyone 120%. If you really look into the religious itself, it’s basically all about loving one another and never hurting a single soul, physically or even emotionally. 

Holmes viewpoints on Legal

I found Holmes viewpoints on Legal Principals and Legal Agents to be quite intriguing. How come it’s fair for the slaves to be dependable enough to be legal agents when it comes to business matters but cant be a legal principal because the law?

I also do agree that when it comes to the law, Holmes is a pragmatist. When needed to be swapped, of those who demanded their services, according to Holmes, that is when legal agents are sent out.  When a service needed to be fulfilled or anything of that sort, then the slaves were considered “legal agent.” But keep it mind, this was only for some of the slaves, not all.

When the slave owners would send out their slaves to fulfill their duty, it’s all because of their contract. These slave owners had so much trust in the contract thinking it would hold them some sort of legitimacy that the slave could be considered their “legal agent,” just so they can deal with all their business responsibilities for them.

Overall, I don’t agree with anything because I don’t believe in the word “slave” anyways. This topic is something I’m very passionate about and think its just a shame overall. It’s a shame to know how life was like back then. No one deserves to be a slave or considered as one. We are all one, we are all humans, and we are all the same. We all should be treated equally and have equal rights.