Wendell Bird
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- March 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780190461621
- eISBN:
- 9780190461980
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190461621.003.0009
- Subject:
- History, American History: early to 18th Century, Political History
Chapter 9, the summary, notes that in describing the views of the early Supreme Court justices before 1798 about freedoms of press and speech, not one embraced the narrow Blackstone definition of ...
More
Chapter 9, the summary, notes that in describing the views of the early Supreme Court justices before 1798 about freedoms of press and speech, not one embraced the narrow Blackstone definition of those freedoms. It also notes that in describing the views of the early justices about the constitutionality of the Sedition Act of 1798, only half supported its constitutionality belatedly adopted the narrow definition of liberties of press and speech, while half did not. Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party were also divided on the legitimacy of the crime of seditious libel and on freedoms of press and speech. On a more fundamental issue of freedom, the parties were inverted, as the Federalist Party and its justices widely condemned slavery, while the Republican Party and its Marshall-era justices widely defended slavery.Less
Chapter 9, the summary, notes that in describing the views of the early Supreme Court justices before 1798 about freedoms of press and speech, not one embraced the narrow Blackstone definition of those freedoms. It also notes that in describing the views of the early justices about the constitutionality of the Sedition Act of 1798, only half supported its constitutionality belatedly adopted the narrow definition of liberties of press and speech, while half did not. Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party were also divided on the legitimacy of the crime of seditious libel and on freedoms of press and speech. On a more fundamental issue of freedom, the parties were inverted, as the Federalist Party and its justices widely condemned slavery, while the Republican Party and its Marshall-era justices widely defended slavery.
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- March 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780226645490
- eISBN:
- 9780226645520
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226645520.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter analyzes Montesquieu's views on republican slavery, the commercial republic and its religiosity, liberal constitutionalism and its religiosity, and the application of the standard found ...
More
This chapter analyzes Montesquieu's views on republican slavery, the commercial republic and its religiosity, liberal constitutionalism and its religiosity, and the application of the standard found in England. Montesquieu is keenly aware that the natural tendency or drift of despotism is toward stupid impoverishment and recurring chaotic self-destruction. But he believes that there is hopeful evidence that some major despots are learning to listen to the voice of the reasoning required by economic self-interest rightly understood.Less
This chapter analyzes Montesquieu's views on republican slavery, the commercial republic and its religiosity, liberal constitutionalism and its religiosity, and the application of the standard found in England. Montesquieu is keenly aware that the natural tendency or drift of despotism is toward stupid impoverishment and recurring chaotic self-destruction. But he believes that there is hopeful evidence that some major despots are learning to listen to the voice of the reasoning required by economic self-interest rightly understood.
