Fugitive Slave Case: Ableman V. Booth, 62 US

Although, the states can “test” out different policies, it doesn’t relate to what federalism is truly meant for. The Constitution

The ruling resulted in the leverage that federal law presides over state

A perpetual, age old question: where does the power go? The debate of whether certain rights belong to the state or the federal government has been argued in America since its creation up to modern times. Out of necessity during the war, The Articles of Confederation were created, and shortly after that, The Constitution of the United States was written in light of the imperfections of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation originated the Federal versus states’ rights debate in America, giving the states large amounts of power, and congress almost none. The Constitution of the United States furthered the debate later on creating tensions between those who favored states’ rights and were against the ratification of the

The overall construction of the Constitution designates that Congress may not direct State officials: “The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals,not States.” It is the President's job, under the Constitution, to oversee execution of federal laws, but “The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the fifty States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control”. However, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority opinion misinterpreted Congress's power under the Constitution. Congress may not wrest the powers that the Constitution reserves to the States, but when it exploits its legitimate constitutional powers,

In some weighty instances, (as making all kinds of treaties, which are to be the laws of the land,) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They, jointly, appoint all officers, civil and military; and they (the Senate) try all impeachments, either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves.” The Anti-Federalists make invalid arguments because the national government doesn’t hold too much power. The state governments still make decisions for that specific state.

Throughout history federalism has gone through several substantial changes, such as the boundaries and balances between the state and national government. Due to this we have experienced several different era’s of federalism from the original “dual-federalism” to the “new federalism” and just about everything else in between. Dual-federalism also known as divided sovereignty was a optimistic belief that federal and state government could exist if their was a clear division between authority. The problem with this is that there was a clever mechanism in the constitution that reserved a powers clause in favor of the national government. Such cases held in Marshall court favored the national government “McCulloch v. Maryland(1819)”, “Gibbons

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

I agree with the Supreme Court on placing emphasizes on keeping the presidential power in check but respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court has the power to hear cases that involve federal questions because the

Congress could not enforce states to pay taxes. In many cases when Congress asked states for taxes for military reasons, the states would not pay anything. Due to the lack of taxes, many War Veterans from the Revolutionary Army who were promised payment from the Government were barely given anything back, this ultimately lead to protests and rebellions. Congress could not do anything about these rebellions and protests because of their lack of funding from the states, and control over the states, so the States ultimately had to deal with this themselves. The United States then quickly made the new Constitution which balanced the power between the State and Congress.

The Unsuccessful Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 In the time of slavery, the North and the South struggled to find a balance over African Americans civil rights. The United States began to segregate into the Union states, those who did not support slavery, and the Confederate states, those who did support slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was among one of the many acts enforced during this time. It was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing peace between the North and the South because it was not a peace intended act, it was ineffective, and it upset both sides.

Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution establishes the limits of state power, decreeing in clause one that “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…” and in clause three that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” In addition to these concrete limitations to state power, Amendment Ten explains: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the

The Fugitive slave law was an act passed to help southern slave owners maintain their slaves. The act was part of the “Compromise of 1850” proposed by Henry Clay. The compromise was made to resolve disputes between the south and north about land and slavery. The south ended up having slavery allowed below the “36,30” and California joined in as a free state. In the 1840s there were many problems of runaway slaves to the North to become free men.

This case affirmed that states are bound to federal courts and that they cannot nullify a federal

The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was a reinforcement of a previous act of the same name passed by Congress in 1793 to provide for the return of slaves who had attempted to escape from their owners to freedom. The new act made any federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

States should follow the supreme court ruling because it supports the equal protection clause dictated within the 14th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction “equal protection of the law”. In other words, the laws of a state must not discriminate. Although, the Equal Protection Clause was created during the post-civil war era to define the rights of freed slaves and to ensure their protection under the law. Throughout time, values have changed as people become more aware of the diversity of groups which exist and the extent of discrimination which follows these groups.