‘The Right to Enter Every Other State’ – The Supreme Court and African American Mobility in the United States

Abstract

In 1857, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated in the Dred Scott case that if one African American was free to move unhindered throughout the United States, then all African Americans, enslaved or otherwise, would have ‘the right to enter every other State’. Such a situation, he argued, was untenable. The Supreme Court thus suggested that if U.S. citizenship included a de facto right to mobility, then African Americans could not be considered citizens. Although not formally written into the U.S. Constitution, numerous Supreme Court rulings since 1857 have underpinned the right to mobility in the United States. Yet the ability to be mobile in the United States has been fundamentally intertwined with the construction of racial identities. It was the white settlers that were free to move westward, the mobile nomadic lifestyles of the peoples they encountered being understood as primitive and inferior. Native peoples subsequently became immobilized on reservations. Similarly, African Americans in the era of slavery were immobilized on plantations and movement away from plantation space was illicit, codified as illegal, and required the hidden networks of the Underground Railroad. An African American moving through white American spaces faced often deadly consequences. African Americans should, in the parlance of the times, ‘know their place’ and not have the ambition, or the right, to move freely around the USA. To explore these contentions, I draw on four landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions that elaborate on the mobility, or curtailment thereof, of African Americans in the United States.     

环境审判专门化的分析与展望——以我国环保法庭模式为切入点

由于环境案件在法律上和技术上的特殊性,环境审判专门化成为司法体制改革的必然趋势。就我国现实状况而言,环境纠纷与日俱增但诉讼极少且无力救济公民权利,审判机制受到多方因素影响而无法正确审理案件。为了应对环境审判的紧迫形势,我国采取环保法庭的专门化审判模式进行试点,不仅具有法律上的依据,而且体现出诸多的优越性。但作为一种新生的审判机制,环保法庭仍然存在诸多问题亟待完善。当然,环保法庭并不是司法推动环保事业的唯一方式,深入探索设立环保法院或者利用现有专门法院等有益途径,可以进一步实现环境审判专门化的目标。     

论刑法第12条的立法与适用——以《最高人民法院公报》案例为对象

刑法第12条将本条适用局限在本法施行以前的行为,这一立法存在缺陷,缺乏预见性。最高人民法院公报上的案例部分弥补了立法的缺陷。立法将追诉时效不纳入到轻重比较的范围,但司法解释却反其道而行之。死刑复核程序适用溯及力,是错误的。＂处刑较轻＂,包括法定刑和涉及刑的事项,还包括构成要件的改变,如果改成＂有利于行为人的法律＂更好。     

Protective supervision: An inquiry into the relationship between child welfare and the court system

Protective Supervision, in most states, is defined in statute as an option in which the child is allowed to remain in the home of high-risk parents under the authority of the court, with supervision provided by the child protection system. Protective Supervision provides states an option to fulfill the federal mandate, as expressed in its guidance on the Child and Family Services Review, to assure that children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of published work on this option. Further, the relationship between child protection and the judicial system, implicit in Protective Supervision, is rarely examined. In response to this dearth of information, an exploratory study was undertaken in Minnesota, funded by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Data were derived from focus groups in every region of the state, with both child protection and judicial system participants. This study offers insights into the complicated nature of the partnership between two complex systems — child welfare and the court system. Currently, there is wide variation in how Protective Supervision is understood and practiced. However, where there is mutual respect between child welfare and the courts, Protective Supervision offers a useful tool.     

论法院执行中的政府垫付工资优先权实现

面对金融危机背景下企业破产倒闭滋生的欠薪纠纷急剧增多带来的社会压力,政府往往通过垫付职工工资方式来应对。而政府垫资后其权益如何在法院执行程序中得到优先保护需要明确。通过对劳动工资优先权的各国主流立法模式的比较分析,发现我国工资优先权制度存在诸多不足,有必要予以全面完善。     

试析美国最高法院的外交功能

美国行政与立法机关在外交领域起着主导作用,司法部门既无兵权、也无财权,在对外事务中可供发挥的余地不多。在漫长的司法实践中,美国的司法系统逐渐形成了司法能动主义和司法限制主义两大对立的派别。值得注意的是,无论是法院对外交案例的积极介入,还是消极规避,均对美国外交产生了不同程度的影响。冷战结束后,随着个人权利与国家安全联系的加强,美国法院在对外事务中必将发挥更大的能动作用。     

对我国审判独立制度改革的思考

我国现行法律规定的审判独立制度 ,是指人民法院作为一个整体的独立 ,而不是法官个人的独立 ,这种制度不利于司法公正的实现。实行法院独立审判制的同时 ,更应强调法官独立审判 ,以保证审判公正。建立法官独立审判制要解决好两方面问题 ,一是保持独立与监督制约的合理平衡 ,防止司法擅断 ;二是法官独立的制度保障。     

浅析法释[2000]33号司法解释的两处失误

最高人民法院 [2000]33号司法解释与刑法相关规定的对比,存在着与法律相背的两处失误：一是钱可以“消”罪;二是共同过失构成共犯。前者可规定为能积极赔偿的可减轻或免以刑罚来解决,后者去掉画蛇添足的共犯二字即可。     

论国际刑事法院管辖权的性质

1998年 7月 1 7日通过的《国际刑事法院规约》赋予国际刑事法院补充管辖权 ,是国际社会在审视历史、权衡利弊之后所作出的理智选择。其目的是使未来国际刑事法院成为独立、公正、有效的国际司法机关 ,真正地发挥其补充作用 ,从而加强对侵略罪、战争罪、危害人类罪等国际犯罪的打击力度     

试论发回重审案件上诉费的承担问题

上诉费是上诉人提起上诉的前提,上诉后案件发回重审的责任在于一审法院,应由人民法院承担。但现行法律只是规定了上诉费由当事人承担的原则,排除了一审法院承担上诉费的责任。因此,应进行立法调整,在法律中规定人民法院承担发回重审案件上诉费的制度。