Book Review of: Slaveholder's Union

George VanCleve has recently published his book, "Slaveholder's Union" (2010) (University of Chicago Press). To put it bluntly, VanCleve comes to the absurd conclusion that the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution were movtivated primarily to enshrine Slavery in America. There are several points to be made in relation to VanCleve's book. First, the title "Slaveholder's Union" is stupid. While VanCleve's book begin with analysis of the American Republic prior to the American Revolution, the rather misleading title he uses refers to the Union North during the American Civil War of the 1860's, where America was divided between the Union North and the Confederate South. VanCleve would have done better to emmulate the title found in the book, "Slaveholding Republic" by Don Fehrenbacher, published in 2001. Contrary to an assertion made in a synopsis of VanCleve's book, it is clear that the dispositive treatment of Slavery in America is Fehrenbacher's book, "Slaveholding Republic." Feherenbacher comes to the more balanced conclusion that the American Revolution has nothing to do with Slavery, one way or the other. My own scholarship indicates that the American Revolutionary movement laid the groundwork for the abolition of Slavery in America. The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 by King Charles II of England states that all laws must be in accorance with reason, that is, they must be reasonable. Similary, the British Constitution, Magna Charta (1215), incorported into the Maryland Constitution, guarantees that each person has a Natural Right to Liberty. Grotius, Europe's' greatest legal philosopher, wrote that all law must be in accordance with reason, and that Natural Law, providing that the Natural Right to Liberty , is inalienable and cannot be taken away. Finally, the American Declaration of Independence and the Pennsylvania Constiution both provide that each person, without exception, has a indefeasible right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of Happiness. Therefore, I argue that the intellecual groundwork was laid to declare that blacks also have Natural Rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which act to abolish Slavery. Politically, you can see that if protection from Slavery was not included in the foregoing legal protections, then it would have been possible for there to be Slavery for Native Americans, Creole Whites, Mullat Blacks, relgious minorities, and ethnic minorities. Thus, it became apparent that if Black's could be unreasonably enslaved, then other groups could as well. Thus, both as a matter of Principle, and as a matter of rational self interest, a growing movement to abolish all Slavery began. This is affirmed by the fact that the Treaty between Britain and America ending the War of 1812 bound both countries to eliminate slavery as soon as possible. So, it is clear that the driving force behind the American movement for Independence was politically motivated by a desire to eliminate arbritrary government and ensure Individual Rights of each person based upon a Natural, inherent Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. VanCleve's first try at an academic book is a simpliste effort, and it is encouraging to note that Harvard is still putting out graduates with the caliber of George VanCleve.

Reviewed by Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif Member, United States Supreme Court Bar

Lochner vs. New York is a Substantive Due Process Case not a Contracts Clause Case

In the law school case books, and in the West Key Number Head Notes, the United States Supreme Court Case of Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), is reported wrongly, to be a Contracts clause case, which involves Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution (the Contracts Clause). However, if you read the original United States Supreme Court Opinion in Lochner vs. New York, Lochner was a Substantive Due Process Clause case involving the 14th Amendment, Substantive Due Process Clause. Lochner states that the Natural Right of Liberty, found in the Declaration of Independence, cannot be limited, except in accordance with reason, following Grotius, Magna Charta, and Natural Law. Thus, the United States Supreme Court, in Lochner, states that the constitutional standard for upholding the validity of a law which impinges upon the Liberty interest of an individual person, such as the right to contract with an employer, for employment, must be in accordance with reason. Thus, the Court in Lochner states that for any law to be valid, it must involve a direct relationhship to an end which is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. Thus, it is obvious that, under Lochner, it is an unconstitutional violation of Substantive Due Process to interfere with the mentally ill, or ethnic or racial minorities, in contracting for employment, by enacting a minimum wage law which provides a lower wage for the mentally ill, or for ethnic or racial minorities. Obviously, if a person is good enough to do the work, the person is good enough to get paid the same as anyone else doing the same work. This also means that all guardianship laws, especially "professional guardianships" are unconstitutional under Substantive Due Process. Put another way, Substantive Due Process prohibits a "Badge of Slavery." This follows the legal principle, set forth in Lochner, that it is unconstitutional for a state law to unreasonably interfere with the Liberty interest, of each person, to have the power to contract for employment, or enter into any other type of contract. All guardianships are unconstitutional "Badges of Slavery," which violate the Declaration of Indpendence, Natural Law, and Magna Charta. That any "Badge of Slavery" is unconstitutional and illegal in the United States is confirmed by the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, ending the War of 1812, which required to United States to begin the process of ending Slavery.

The Alleged Crime of Criminal Insanity is Unconstitutional and Void

In some states, there appears to a statuory crime called Criminal Insanity. One such statute is found in 18 Pennsylvania Statute Section 314. This statute states that a person can be found guilty of Criminal Insanity if that person has plead not guilty be reason of insanity, and the judge refuses to make that finding, and instead finds that the person is "guilty but mentally ill" and is then criminally sentenced. This type of Crimnal Insanity statute is clearly unconstitutional, and constitutes a violation of Natural Law. Magna Charta and Substantive Due Process, follow the United States Supereme Court cas of Lochner v. New York, provides that any criminal statute must be in accordance with reason, and, additionally, cannot diverge substantially from the Common Law crimes of England. The English Common law requires that a crime, to be a crime, must have as an element of proof of that crime, Mens Rea (specific criminal intent to commit the crime) and Actus Reas (an overt, physical act, constituting the crime). In other words, status crimes, as defined as crimes, violate Magna Charta, Natural Law, and Substantive Due Process. Thus, the enactment of a statute or common law crime involving status, is unconstituional and illegal. The Criminal Insanity statue in Pennsylvania and other states is clearly unconstitutional as violating both Substantie and Procedural Due Process. First of all, the Crime of Criminal Insanity is clearly unconsitutional because it involves a status crime where no finding of specific criminal intent, nor an overt act, is required for the crime. Next, you cannot glom together criminal and civil law. If "Criminal Insanity" is a crime, then it is unconstitutional under Substantive and Procedural Due Process. If "Criminal Insanity" is a civil offense, then there can be not use of the word "criminal" in the statute, and there can be not coeerced incarceration or involuntary commitment. Using civil law to put a person in jail, on a psychiatric ward, or in a nursing home, with the use of coercive force, violates the Liberty interest of the defendant, and Magna Charta, and Substantive Due Process, and is therefore, clearly unconstitutional, and, any judge or prosecutor or psychiatrist, who attempts to illegally confine such a defendant, commit the crimes of False Imprisonment and Section 1983 and Section 242.