Judges and the Fugitive Slave Act essays

Judges and the Fugitive Slave Act essays Judges in the 18th and 19th century were often faced with a conflict regarding laws on fugitive slaves. Many held the opinion that slavery was wrong, but at the time the constitution did not prohibit slavery. In this essay I will first show the positivist argument, that law and morality are separate and their view of the Clause and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Next, I will explain Anthony Seboks side, which uses Dworkins interpretation model of adjudication for a different reading of the laws. The debate I will analyze is between Robert Cover and Anthony Sebok. They argue different ways to read the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 I will then argue in favor of Sebok and show why I agree that the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional. A positivist would say that law and morality are separate, and this must be reflected in judges decisions. Robert Cover supports this view. Cover analyzes Judges in the 18th and 19th centuries covering Fugitive Slave cases and in particular Judge Shaw. Cover says Judge Shaw was faced with a moral-formal dilemma. He says, referring to Shaw, he sees himself as torn between moral and legal duties. On the one hand, he believes slavery is immoral. On the other, he believes he is bound to uphold the rule of law (Cover, 148). Since each state was allowed to make their own laws on slavery, the moral-formal dilemma and the choice between the demands of the role and the voice of conscience (Cover, 153) is created. A positivist argues that judges must uphold the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Acts in these cases. The Fugitive Slave Clause in the United States can be interpreted in different ways depending on political morality or personal beliefs. The Clause in the constitution rea ds: No person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequenc...