20.02.2013 Views

SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University

SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University

SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

perhaps so they could control the numbers of divorces and types of pleas.” 32 Common reasons<br />

behind requests for divorce in Virginia include adultery, giving birth to a mulatto child, cruelty,<br />

and abandonment.<br />

With the exception of South Carolina, other southern states also accepted the practice of<br />

legislative divorce. Riley contends that this was not as big of a departure from English Common<br />

Law as one would think. She argues, “This was not the break from English practice that it<br />

appears to be, for beginning in 1670, the English Parliament began to grant infrequent absolute<br />

divorces. Southern leaders replicated this practice by limiting the power to grant divorces to<br />

state legislatures just as English practice limited divorce jurisdiction to Parliament, the national<br />

legislature.” 33 Maryland was the first state to grant a divorce in the post-revolutionary period.<br />

The Maryland state legislature established the precedent of legislative divorces in 1790 when<br />

they granted a divorce to a couple when the wife gave birth to a mulatto child.<br />

Legal scholars questioned whether legislative divorces violated the contract clause of the<br />

Constitution, which impaired legislative involvement in the obligations of contracts. As<br />

VanBurkleo puts it, “Although lawyers disagreed about the clause’s application to public<br />

agreements, few doubted that it proscribed meddling with the rights enshrined in private<br />

contracts, of which marriage seemed to be one type. If divorce acts altered or destroyed property<br />

rights, moreover, they might run afoul of constitutional prohibitions against ‘takings’ and ex post<br />

facto legislation.” 34 As early as the 1810s, scholars debated this issue. In 1819, Supreme Court<br />

Justice Story mentioned this debate in his dissenting opinion in the Dartmouth College v<br />

Woodward case. While this case did not mention divorce, it focused on the contract clause of the<br />

32 Ibid., 56.<br />

33 Ibid., 55.<br />

34 VanBurkleo, 69.<br />

10

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!