[nikoloslvy1041]

Best book on the slaughterhouse cases?

[nikoloslvy1041]

or book”s”…

[jeremy.l.neufeld]

See Ronald M. Labbe’s and Jonathan Lurie’s The Slaughterhouse Cases: Regulation, Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thank you.

[gutzmank]

Here’s my review of the best book on the subject: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Labbe-Lurie104.htm

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thank you as allways…(In regards to the other subject..the professor responded…the words “dead white men” were used…ugh…as opposed to an alive black men today that compares? Will post soon )

[gutzmank]

What’s the point of tormenting people with “the professor’s” completely uninformed jottings? In order to earn a law degree from most law schools, one must take 6 hours of constitutional law. Those two courses consist of limited reading of opinions of dead judges, most of whom were appointed because of political connections. “The professor” is typical of his ilk in having essentially no knowledge of the Constitution beyond what a few judges said, and in thinking that this makes him some kind of expert. You’d be better off just reading the Constitution than listening to this fellow.

[nikoloslvy1041]

The book talks about a realization of the city (pushed by the medical community) that something had to be done in regards to the amount of filth being dumped into the streets and river by local butchers anytime a new outbreak of yellow fever or cholera broke out .Political intransigence caused by private butcher interests however led to all laws and regulations enacted during the outbreak to be ignored once the epidemic was over. The argument (the authors don’t really make arguments but merrily write about history) if there is any seems to be that we need government to regulate us for if left to our own whims we are likely to poison ourselves.While its heavily documented and historically accurate its quite an odd reading suggestion. Up to page 53.

In regards to the professor: Well thats a shame.I’m sory you feel that way, I and I’m sure many others were enjoying the back and fourth sir.

[gutzmank]

No, their argument isn’t that “we are likely to poison ourselves,” it’s that New Orleanians were being poisoned. This assertion seems incontrovertable.

As to “the professor,” I don’t agree. As I explained before (and do at more length in THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION), earning a J.D. doesn’t require obtaining any knowledge of constitutional history. Unfortunately, being hired as a law professor after obtaining a J.D. seems to confer the impression that one is expert in constitutional history. This is a very unfortunate combination.

[porphyrogenitus]

“While its heavily documented and historically accurate its quite an odd reading suggestion.”

The Rothbardian solution would have been one that wasn’t used there; – rather than essentially cartelizing the New Orleans Slaughterhouses (IIRC closing all but 2 politically-selected ones), torts to keep them from dumpling their slime onto other people’s property (including waterways); then Rothbard would say, under his system, “we” wouldn’t be infecting “ourselves,” because the slaughterhouses could go about their business without depositing the viscera in this way, and the ones that could not afford to conduct their businesses properly would have been the ones that closed while the others would have remained open.

“In regards to the other subject..the professor responded…the words “dead white men””

An ad hominem used to dismiss ideas he does not like based on their origins but without addressing the ideas themselves. If you’re able to be cheeky enough, point that out, and then point out that virtually all the ideas/methods of constitutional interpretation he does like (I’m assuming he’s some sort of progressive, Left Progressive or Liberal Progressive) originated with “dead white men” also, so invoking this purile phrase is rather inapt.

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thanks gents.

[Author]

Posts