Louis Charles Hamilton,
II v Donald John Trump Sr. 45th President 112
Introduction
Louis Charles Hamilton,
II v Donald John Trump Sr. 45th President:
Slavery Servitude of defendant
Donald John Trump Sr. 45th President United States of America et al official
timeline
August 20th 1619 – February 7th 2013 upon the
Archivist of defendant “United States of America et al
“Charles A. Barth
Director of the Federal Register”, acknowledge receipt of Senate Concurrent Resolution
Number 574 Resolution, adopted by the defendant Mississippi Senate on February
16, 1995 and The Mississippi House of Representatives on March 16th
1995, as with this action,
“Defendant”, The States of Mississippi has ratified
the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the defendant “United
States”
SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY Origin and Purpose In
1863, Plaintiff President Lincoln issued an Emancipation Proclamation
1
declaring, based on his war powers, that within named States and parts of
States in rebellion against the United States ‘‘all persons held as slaves
within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall
be free; . . . .’’
The Proclamation did not allude to slaves held in the
loyalist States, and moreover, there were questions about the Proclamation’s
validity. Not only was there doubt concerning the President’s power to issue
his order at all, but also there was a general conviction that its effect would
not last beyond the restoration of the seceded States to the Union.
2 Because
the power of Congress was similarly deemed not to run to legislative
extirpation of the ‘‘peculiar institution,’’
3 a constitutional amendment was
then sought. After first failing to muster a two-thirds vote in the House of
Representatives, the amendment was forwarded to the States on February 1, 1865,
and ratified by the following December 18.
4 In selecting the text of the
Amendment, Congress ‘‘reproduced the historic words of the ordinance of 1787
for the government of the Northwest Territory, and gave them unrestricted
application
1 12 Stat. 1267.
2The legal issues were surveyed in Welling,
The Emancipation Proclamation, 130 NO. AMER. REV. 163 (1880). See also J.
RANDALL, CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS UNDER LINCOLN 371–404 (rev. ed. 1951).
3K. STAMPP, THE PECULIAR INSTITUTION: SLAVERY
IN THE ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH (1956).
4The congressional
debate on adoption of the Amendment is conveniently collected in 1 B. SCHWARTZ,
STATUTORY HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES—CIVIL RIGHTS 25–96 (1970).
Louis Charles Hamilton,
II v Donald John Trump Sr. 45th President 113
Within the United
States.’’
5 By its adoption, Congress intended, said Senator Trumbull, one of
its sponsors, to ‘‘take this question [of emancipation] entirely away from the
politics of the country. We relieve Congress of sectional strifes . . . .’’
6
An early Supreme Court decision, rejecting a contention that the Amendment
reached servitude's on property as it did on persons, observed in dicta that the
‘‘word servitude is of larger meaning than slavery, . . . and the obvious
purpose was to forbid all shades and conditions of African slavery.’’ While the
Court was initially in doubt whether persons other than African Americans could
share in the protection afforded by the Amendment, it did continue to say that
although
‘‘[N]egro slavery alone
was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it
forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the
Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese
race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it
void.’’
7 ‘‘This Amendment . . . is undoubtedly
self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are
applicable to any existing state of circumstances.
By its own unaided force and
effect it abolished slavery, and established universal freedom.’’
8 These words
of the Court in 1883 have generally been noncontroversial and have evoked
little disagreement in the intervening years. The ‘‘force and effect’’ of the
Amendment itself has been invoked only a few times by the Court to strike down
state legislation which it considered to have reintroduced servitude of
persons, and the Court has not used section 1 of the Amendment against private
parties.
9 In 1968, however, the Court overturned almost century-old precedent
and held that Congress may regulate private activity in exercise of its section
2 power to enforce section 1 of the Amendment.
5 Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 240
(1911). During the debate, Senator Howard noted that the language was ‘‘the
good old Anglo-Saxon language employed by our fathers in the ordinance of 1787,
an expression which has been adjudicated upon repeatedly, which is perfectly
well understood both by the public and by judicial tribunals. . . .’’ CONG.
GLOBE, 38th Cong., 1st Sess. 1489 (1864).
6 CONG. GLOBE at 1313-14.
7Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16
Wall.) 36, 69, 71–72 (1873). This general applicability was again stated in
Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, 16–17 (1906), and confirmed by the result
of the peonage cases, discussed under the next topic.
8 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883).
9 In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392
U.S. 409, 439 (1968), the Court left open the question whether the Amendment
itself, unaided by legislation, would reach the ‘‘badges and incidents’’ of
slavery not directly associated with involuntary servitude, and it continued to
reserve the question in City of Memphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100, 125–26 (1981).
See Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 552 (1896) (Justice Harlan dissenting).
The Court drew back from the possibility in Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217,
226–27 (1971).
+BRITISH QUEEN +United Nations +British Parliament +NATO +Prince Harry +Washington Post +BBC News +CNN International +The New York Times +Hillary Clinton +GOP
No comments:
Post a Comment