Was the Fugitive Slave Act a violation of state's rights?

[Scam of God]

Of course it was. For the Statist South to have passed such a law essentially precipitated the American Civil War, and brought their house down in on them. They had no right in telling the North how to treat the runaways, insofar as it was the runaways themselves, and not the North, that did the escaping.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Definitely. Of course, most people only have principles insofar as they help themselves.

[SPC]

Of course it was, but I doubt you care:

For too long have you relied upon like a crutch that decrepit Reaganist mantra - states' rights!

[Scam of God]

Of course it was, but I doubt you care:

For too long have you relied upon like a crutch that decrepit Reaganist mantra - states' rights!

Of course I don't, because states' rights has not historically been an individualist position: I am concerned with individual rights, not states' rights. But pointing out the obvious and unending hypocrisy of conservatives who pretend to champion both has long been a forte of mine, and it will continue for the foreseeable future.

[SPC]

Of course it was, but I doubt you care:

For too long have you relied upon like a crutch that decrepit Reaganist mantra - states' rights!

Of course I don't, because states' rights has not historically been an individualist position: I am concerned with individual rights, not states' rights. But pointing out the obvious and unending hypocrisy of conservatives who pretend to champion both has long been a forte of mine, and it will continue for the foreseeable future.

And what conservative has defended the Fugutive Slave Act that would warrant such a label of hypocrisy?

[Scam of God]

Of course it was, but I doubt you care:

For too long have you relied upon like a crutch that decrepit Reaganist mantra - states' rights!

Of course I don't, because states' rights has not historically been an individualist position: I am concerned with individual rights, not states' rights. But pointing out the obvious and unending hypocrisy of conservatives who pretend to champion both has long been a forte of mine, and it will continue for the foreseeable future.

And what conservative has defended the Fugutive Slave Act that would warrant such a label of hypocrisy?

I don't know. What's say we get Libertas' perspective on the issue?

[SPC]

Of course it was, but I doubt you care:

For too long have you relied upon like a crutch that decrepit Reaganist mantra - states' rights!

Of course I don't, because states' rights has not historically been an individualist position: I am concerned with individual rights, not states' rights. But pointing out the obvious and unending hypocrisy of conservatives who pretend to champion both has long been a forte of mine, and it will continue for the foreseeable future.

And what conservative has defended the Fugutive Slave Act that would warrant such a label of hypocrisy?

I don't know. What's say we get Libertas' perspective on the issue?

Do you have a quote of him supporting the Fugutive SLave Act, or are you just pulling accusations out of your ass?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course it was a violation of states' rights, but to claim that the Fugitive Slave Act justified Lincoln's Tariff War is laughable.

If anything it might have given the North justification to secede.

[SPC]

Of course it was a violation of states' rights, but to claim that the Fugitive Slave Act justified Lincoln's Tariff War is laughable.

If anything it might have given the North justification to secede.

Exactly, and that possibility was advocated by many abolitionists at the time.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Of course it was a violation of states' rights, but to claim that the Fugitive Slave Act justified Lincoln's Tariff War is laughable.

If anything it might have given the North justification to secede.

Exactly, and that possibility was advocated by many abolitionists at the time.

     The North definitely should have seceded rather than deal with the political opportunism of the South protecting the interests of the slaver class.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Was it an interference with how northern States chose to deal with the question of slavery? Most assuredly so.

Was it unconstitutional? Most assuredly not.  Clearly covered by Article IV Section 2 Clause 3.

For those who argue that instead of judges, juries should have been involved, let me ask if you favor juries for the criminal extradition provisions of Article IV Section 2 Clause 2.

The Constitution as drafted made the United States as a whole a slave-holding country and so it would remain until the XIIIth Amendment.

That is not to say that there are not troubling aspects to the law.  That the fees received by the commissioners depended upon the decision rendered being the prime troubling aspect.

Unfortunately, bad laws need not be unconstitutional laws.