Until your personal swipe at the end, I liked your post which may very well be a good argument in favor of Congress having the power to declare territories slave-free. The inherent rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and presumed in the Constitution can probably be inferred to run afoul of slave ownership. All of that goes on the side of Congress having constitutional power to make territories slave free.
However, I think the Full Faith and Credit Clause was in play between the states since slavery was not as yet unconstitutional.
I’m sorry you, BroJoeK, have decided to pull an ad hominem on me fallaciously deciding that I must be a Democrat if something in my argument appears to you to be the same as some Democrat.
That is uncalled for, a logical fallacy, and rude. You obviously did no research at all on my posts or my website https://sonsofconstitutionalliberty.com/ which I refer to many times. If you had, you wouldn’t have made such ignorant and stupid statements. I’ll try not to include you in further discussions of mine.
Sorry, but your arguments supporting Democrat Chief Justice Taney's Dred Scot decision are pure Democrat bovine excrement and deserve no respect -- zero, zip, nada respect -- on a conservative, freedom loving, God fearing, Republican associated web site.
And you won't get it from me, FRiend.
Taney's 1857 decision is universally recognized as total rubbish, extra-constitutional activism and just the kind of things Democrats have always done.
If you wish to debate it at length, in detail, I and others here will be happy to, but since Dred Scot contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, don't expect any respect for Dred Scot defenders from here.
No it can't. That is a deliberately dishonest reading of the intentions of the Signatories to the Declaration of Independence. If it was their intent to include slaves in the declaration, they would have freed their own slaves. As Justice Taney correctly stated, the Declaration was not comprehended as applying to slaves.
You also cannot assert the constitution intended to give freedom to slaves, because it specifically includes protections for slavery in Article IV section 2.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Interestingly enough, this is in the exact same article of the constitution that requires "full faith and credit" for the acts of other states, meaning other state laws regarding slavery. It's as if the founders were signaling that the "full faith and credit" must apply to slavery, because protecting the labor laws of other states was what was immediately mentioned right after the "full faith and credit" clause.
The Scott Decision did not rest on the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Jurisprudence under the Clause is somewhat complex, but suffice it to say the Clause has never been used to apply one state’s statutory law in another state. More importantly, the Clause does not apply if its application would conflict with a fundamental public policy of another state. A state’s decision not to consider human beings as chattel property would seem to be pretty fundamental.