# Is Robertson v. Baldwin still held to be valid?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-robertson-v-baldwin-still-held-to-be-valid/644027>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 14, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-robertson-v-baldwin-still-held-to-be-valid/644027 "2012-12-14T14:44:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-robertson-v-baldwin-still-held-to-be-valid/644027/1 "2012-12-14T14:44:26Z")

</div>

[ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275) was a case involving involuntary servitude by sailors. But the ruling potentially goes way beyond that; the majority opinion was that the Bill of Rights had “exceptions” from time immemorial that were grandfathered into law:

> [@](#):
>
> The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the ‘Bill of Rights,’ were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.

Is this ruling still considered the law of the land?