Early Interpretations Flashcards
Barron v. Baltimore
City of Baltimore flooded Barron’s wharf but did not provide compensation. Barron sued the state under the 5th Amendment’s Taking Clause.
Conclusion: 5th Amendment only applies to the Federal government action and does not apply to State actions
- Framer’s intent was to limit the Federal government’s power and not State.
The Bill of Rights does not limit State governments per se → gets limited by the incorporation doctrine
A state/city can’t violate the 5A, they can only violate the 14A (b/c of incorporation).
Prigg v. PA
PA law tried to protect escaped slaves and said that slave catchers had to go to state judge to get a warrant, bring slave back to judge for a decision.
Prigg was hired to abduct slave from PA, and was arrested for violating the PA law.
Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 said if you help anyone escape slavery, you can be fined and then you have an obligation to make sure the escapee is re-enslaved.
The Court held that the Constitution “manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right” for slave owners.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Missouri Compromise made all states north of the 36 30 line free states.
Scott escaped to IL (a free state) and so Scott sued the executor of owner’s estate claiming he was a free man now.
The court interprets the Constitution as prohibiting any person of African descent born in US from being a US Citizen.
- Says that African Americans were not included in the original meaning of the Constitution because the framers would have been hypocrites (i.e., framers kept slaves, so they didn’t consider them citizens)
Court Interprets the Constitution as limiting Congress’ power to enact federal laws like the MO compromise b/c right to property in enslaved persons is protected in Constitution. Federal laws conferring freedom on anyone held as a slave in any state infringes on that right
Prof: Inverse of Prigg b/c Congress had power to pass Fugitive Slave Clause, but now SC says Congress doesn’t have power to pass MO compromise b/c states should be able to control
Civil Rights Cases
1875 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.
Court held Congress lacks power to pass civil rights laws that ban discrimination by operators of public accommodations—strike down Civil Rights Act of 1875
Prof: This case is not good rationale for why it didn’t apply to private actors and thus Harlan says it was court’s ideology showing.
Harlan Dissent: Private actors can be prohibited by const.
- Not saying that Congress has power to regulate private citizens - Harlan is saying that when a private actor opens places like public accommodations, these private actors can be constrained by Const. because being open to the public ties them enough to the gov.
Slaughterhouse Cases
CHECK`
