2) Justice Shaw concluded two different rulings in his 1836 and 1851 cases regarding two similar “fugitive slave” scenarios. In the Commonwealth v. Aves case, Justice Shaw ruled that the “fugitive slave” was to remain in Massachusetts and therefore, become a freed slave. Justice Shaw ruled the opposite in 1851 and ordered Thomas Sims be returned to Georgia after he had escaped. Justice Shaw cited two different laws in his opposite decisions. In the case of Commonwealth v. Aves (1836), Justice Shaw cited the lack of the law of comity as justification for keeping Med, the fugitive slave, in Massachusetts and therefor not returning her to her slave masters in the south. The law of comity states that property acquired by an individual in one state
…show more content…
Thin rule of law is based on procedural justice and is a means of avoiding arbitrary rule. Thin rule of law is also not very substantive and is consistent with a wide range of moral values. It is more inclined to leave decisions on issues to each individual and therefore serves individualism and liberal views. Due to the deflection of decision making to the individual, thin rule of law as stated by Hutchinson and Monahan is most compatible with non-democratic rule. This differs greatly from the second version of the rule of law, which is the thick rule of law. Hutchinson and Monahan see the thick rule of law as being committed to a certain vision of social justice that has respect for individual rights and fights to protect them. It serves to actively limit democratic rule by having an active judiciary that is able to strike down invalid laws in defense of political morality. The main distinction between the two visions of the rule of law is the way in which justice is utilized. With thin rule of law, procedural justice operates with common law and deals with and lays down the ways and means by which substantive law can be enforced. The thick rule of law is based on substantive law which is in turn represented by the implementation of statutory law by governmental powers in an effort to establish rights and obligations of individuals. Fullers legal theory on the rule of law should be
Thin rule of law is based on procedural justice and is a means of avoiding arbitrary rule. Thin rule of law is also not very substantive and is consistent with a wide range of moral values. It is more inclined to leave decisions on issues to each individual and therefore serves individualism and liberal views. Due to the deflection of decision making to the individual, thin rule of law as stated by Hutchinson and Monahan is most compatible with non-democratic rule. This differs greatly from the second version of the rule of law, which is the thick rule of law. Hutchinson and Monahan see the thick rule of law as being committed to a certain vision of social justice that has respect for individual rights and fights to protect them. It serves to actively limit democratic rule by having an active judiciary that is able to strike down invalid laws in defense of political morality. The main distinction between the two visions of the rule of law is the way in which justice is utilized. With thin rule of law, procedural justice operates with common law and deals with and lays down the ways and means by which substantive law can be enforced. The thick rule of law is based on substantive law which is in turn represented by the implementation of statutory law by governmental powers in an effort to establish rights and obligations of individuals. Fullers legal theory on the rule of law should be