“Thirty Lashes, Well Laid On”

2021 ◽  
pp. 19-38
Author(s):  
Peter Irons

This chapter begins with the first importation of African slaves into colonial Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619. As their numbers grew, and interracial sex produced mixed-race (called “mulatto”) children, White colonists responded with a law designating all mulatto children as slaves, overturning a grant of freedom to Elizabeth Key, a mulatto indentured servant who married a young English settler and had a child with him. The chapter discusses the Slave Codes that stripped Blacks of any rights. Slave states also banned the teaching of slaves to read and write, lest they read “incendiary” publications and revolt, as some did. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the personal conflicts over slavery felt by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and the role of Madison at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 in crafting the Great Compromise that legalized slavery as the price of creating a federal government.

2017 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 621-648
Author(s):  
John Patrick Coby

AbstractWhile generally a steady ally of James Madison and the nationalists, Gouverneur Morris, delegate from Pennsylvania, worked from a different conception of republican politics. Morris's republicanism was more old than new, relying on the divided sovereignty of a mixed regime to protect the rights of citizens and minorities. This conception, it is argued here, bears the stamp of Machiavelli, especially regarding the relationship of the classes and the role of the executive. Like Machiavelli—but unlike Madison—Morris wanted to underscore society's class divisions, organizing the representatives of rich and poor into two distinct, and hostile, chambers of the legislature. And like Machiavelli, whose “civil prince” was the champion of the people, Morris's executive was to be the “guardian of the people” and the “guardian of liberty.”


Author(s):  
Scott Burris ◽  
Micah L. Berman ◽  
Matthew Penn, and ◽  
Tara Ramanathan Holiday

Chapter 20 explores the strategic reasons why entities may challenge public health laws, and uses the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. FDA case to walk through the steps of a legal challenge to a public health law. The chapter also identifies the attorneys involved in defending public health laws on behalf of local, state, and federal government entities and explains how legal technical assistance from public health organizations can support their efforts. Finally, the chapter defines the role of amicus curiae briefs and how they may effectively contribute to the defense of public health laws and regulations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Colon-Cabrera ◽  
Shivika Sharma ◽  
Narelle Warren ◽  
Dikaios Sakellariou

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered the ways in which disabled people are made more vulnerable due to structural inequalities. These vulnerabilities are the result of the interaction between individual and structural factors that shape how risk is experienced by disabled people. In Australia, these vulnerabilities are influenced by the way disability services and care for disabled people are delivered through a consumer-directed approach. We analysed the policies and documentation made by the Australian Government and state and territory governments during the pandemic to explore whether these were disability-inclusive. We aimed to unpack how these policies shaped disabled people as vulnerable citizens. Methods Guided by documentary research, we used framework analysis to examine the policies of the Australian Government and state and territory governments. We analysed legislation that was given royal assent by the federal, state and territory governments, and documents (reports, fact sheets, guidance documents, etc.) published by the federal government and the state of Victoria (given that this state experienced the brunt of the epidemic in Australia) between February 2020 to August of 2020. Results We found that most of the resources were not aimed at disabled people, but at carers and workers within disability services. In addition, most policies formulated by the Australian Government were related to the expansion of welfare services and the creation of economic stimulus schemes. However, while the stimulus included unemployed people, the expansion of benefits explicitly excluded disabled people who were not employed. Most of the legislation and documents offered accessibility options, though most of these options were only available in English. Disability oriented agencies offered more extensive accessibility options. Conclusions The findings indicate a large number of documents addressing the needs of disabled people. However, disability-inclusiveness appeared to be inconsistent and not fully considered, leaving disabled people exposed to greater risk of COVID-19. Neoliberal policies in the health and welfare sector in Australia have led to an individualisation of the responsibility to remain healthy and a reliance on people as independent consumers. Governments need to take a clear stance towards the emergence of such a discourse that actively disvalues disabled people.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document