scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

Constitutional problems under Lincoln

01 Jan 1926-
About: The article was published on 1926-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 92 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2015

2 citations

01 Jan 1960
TL;DR: In this article, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution attempt to discover what the ideas of the authors were in regard to the position of the Negro race in United States, and into what fields of race relations they believed it would enter.
Abstract: Much of the confusion surrounding the question of race relations in the United States today has been due to the vacillation of the Supreme Court on the real meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to Negro rights and to the vagueness of the amendment itself. Today the Court has interpreted the amendment in an entirely differ­ ent sense than was common fifty years ago. The purpose of this study is not to determine the correct interpretation of the amendment, but to attempt to discover what the ideas of the authors of that measure were in regard to the position of the Negro race in the United States. What did they believe this Constitutional provision would accomplish, and into what fields of race relations did they believe it would enter? Many separate factors affect the ideas of men, and the Radicals were subject to. many influences which helped shape their ideas and attitudes. Among these influences were the racial ideas of the North, particularly of the New England states, where most of them were born; the evangelical fervor of the Abolitionist movement, to which many of them subscribed; and the Free Soil movement, which many Radicals sup­ ported. As they gained political power during the years of the Civil War, they came under the influence of their constituents, who were responsible for their reelection, as well as military necessity in the winning of the war. With the end of the war, the Radicals triumphed. Their ideas were enacted into law, and were later made more secure through

2 citations

Book ChapterDOI
James Kraska1
TL;DR: The Mavi Marmara interdiction by the Israeli Navy on 31 May 2010 raises the issue of whether or how the law of naval warfare applies in the struggle between Israel and Gaza.
Abstract: The Israeli Navy enforcement of a blockade against Gaza, and the interdiction of the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010, raises the issue of whether or how the law of naval warfare applies in the struggle between Israel and Gaza. The law of blockade arose originally as a feature of international armed conflicts (IACs). If the Gaza conflict constitutes IAC, then the law of blockade applies. If, however, the Gaza conflict constitutes a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), the application of the law of blockade is less clear. While blockade originated as a legal concept in IAC, usage, state practice and opinio juris have caused it to migrate into NIAC. The analogy of the American Civil War offers clues for solving this riddle. The US experience suggests that if Gaza were regarded as a sovereign state, then a state of war—IAC—would exist between Israel and Gaza. In such case, there is no doubt that the imposition of blockade is lawful. But this determination places Israel in the same dilemma experienced by the Union during the Civil War. If Israel avails itself of the right to blockade Hamas, is it also willing to grant Hamas lawful belligerent status? If the law of blockade does not apply in the case of the Israeli armed struggle with Gaza because Gaza is not a ‘state’, then this determination produces the absurd result that a nation may defend itself using a lawful instrument recognized by the law of armed conflict in fighting another state, but must voluntarily forgo the option if confronted with an equally powerful entity that does not meet the legal definition. Consequently, the law of blockade applies in the case of Gaza because there is no other rule set that appropriately balances the interests of the belligerents and neutrals.

2 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors found that two Civil War-era political leaders born in Kentucky would hold similar constitutional understandings and shared a common biography; both were natives of Kentucky and both followed Henry Clay to oppose slavery and favor democratic values.
Abstract: It should come as no surprise that two Civil War–era political leaders born in Kentucky would hold similar constitutional understandings. President Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) and Senator Garrett Davis (1801-72) shared a common biography; both were natives of Kentucky and both followed Henry Clay to oppose slavery and favor democratic values. Both revered the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution as binding. Both served as Whigs in Congress, Lincoln

2 citations