Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know).
Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority:
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
There are some differences between the Constitutions and I'm not convinced, partially because the vice president of the Confederacy himself seemed to think that it was "unmistakably" protected in the Constitution:
"I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
Edit: The privileges and immunities clause of the US 14th amendment seems to have a parallel in the Confederate Constitution so it's not entirely clear that the Constitutions are the same here (and it seems like if the Constitution didn't protect slavery it was an oversight or someone just forgot to tell their vice president). Apparently the privileges and immunities clause in the US Constitution was essentially nullified later (the US Supreme Court seems to have just wacky interpretations sometimes) but seems intended to confer rights to people in states. I'm a bit out of my depth in finding primary sources on this though, except for the excerpt from the VP who has a very clear opinion (and I have a tendency to not immediately believe what a VP is saying).
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
> The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves.
Similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause, this does not invalidate the Dred Scott opinion that "a State may unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory."
Huh, it never got tested in the Confederacy but it's interesting their Constitution might not have protected it. I'm very curious what the Confederate Supreme Court would have said if it ever had existed.
I wonder if that it's not clearly protected based on US jurisprudence is an oversight because apparently the Barron v Baltimore decision wasn't well known at the time according to the wiki article you linked on it and the VP was so adamant that it is.
> In thus constructing the fundamental law, of course, a struggle has occurred in the secret sessions of the Montgomery Congress, in which those refusing to close the door against the reception of anti-slavery States have achieved a victory.
47 CFR § 97.403: Safety of life and protection of property.
> No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.
I'm sure there must be something that covers it, but I'm not sure it that.
That seems to only apply to amateur stations, which 47 CFR defines as stations in an amateur service. I.e., ham radio stations.
I've got a ham radio license, so it would cover me if I transmitted outside of the ham bands, or exceeded power limits, or used an unauthorized modulation method to try to help save lives and protect property, but for someone without a ham license I think we'd have to look elsewhere for legal cover.
Interesting, thanks. Odd that this data was never part of the published record from the Post, and that Graham's source is apparently secret? Curious what you make of that? If the Post had it, they'd surely have released it. I guess it's sort of academic at this point, but it does point to a few different actors pushing this story in different directions.
> If the Post had it, they'd surely have released it.
It's extremely rare for journalists in traditional media to publish email headers, even when people are accusing messages of being inauthentic and the DKIM would go a long way towards certifying them and when people are begging for them. I think I'm aware of only one other instance, though I've personally begged journalists for headers multiple times even in some cases where I was a subject of the article and not some random nobody.
From the perspective of protecting sources it's probably good advice to avoid publishing any kind of opaque header-stuff. But also, most readers wouldn't know what to do with the information and -- less charitably-- publishing evidence moves away from the framework where readers accept the reporters word on blind faith.
Your position was entirely understandable: I declined to link to the repo or the two flagged HN threads about it, though I considered it, because I thought it would increase the risk that my comment would get flagged. I think your reply had the surprising consequence of making a really good example at how effective the suppression of info like this is at distorting the public discourse.
Even GNU/Linux? :)