Shall I go on? I don't know. Thought at first you were at least a reasonable guy.
Guess I'll say this: if it could be shown that the signers of the Dof I did not intend Life, Liberty, and Pursuits to include slaves, then that would weigh in favor of Congress not having power to exclude slavery from territories.
You need to pay attention. I never said the Constitution "intended to give freedom to slaves." Just the opposite. I said the Constitution allowed slavery and until the 13th-15th Amendments, slavery was a states' issue.
Even if territories were found to be slave-free zones so to speak, I don't believe that would give the territory the right to take away the slave-owner's property. It seems to me that if a state had to give full GF&C to another state that a territory would also be bound to give a state full GF&C.
So whether a territory was slave free or not, I think Dred Scott was properly decided certain questionable parts of the opinion notwithstanding.
Sure, but the key fact which somehow keeps escaping you knuckleheads ("knuckleheads" is statement of fact, not insult!) is that the Founders and their Constitution also allowed abolition, indeed the records make clear they expected eventual abolitions.
So for Taney and now you, generations later, to come along and proclaim: "the Constitution prevented abolition" is total rubbish, Democrat style judicial activism.
Sorry if that offends you precious snowflakes, but truth is not always so gentle.
Your minds are screwed up on this subject, and you need to straighten them out.
We're here to help you with that.
Don't take it personal. When I was referring to a dishonest reading, I meant historically dishonest, not you specifically. Those of us who have looked into this issue are aware that the words in the Declaration were adopted into the Massachusetts State Constitution, and lawsuits were immediately brought claiming those words (All men are created equal ...) freed all the slaves in Massachusetts.
The framers of the Massachusetts constitution had no such intent, but that didn't stop the courts from dishonestly interpreting those words in that manner. People have been doing it ever since.
If you've studied the history of the period, the founders clearly did not intend for the Declaration to free the slaves.
Guess I'll say this: if it could be shown that the signers of the Dof I did not intend Life, Liberty, and Pursuits to include slaves, then that would weigh in favor of Congress not having power to exclude slavery from territories.
Exhibit one, the guy who wrote it kept his own slaves. So did most (All?) of the other slave owners who signed it.
Even if territories were found to be slave-free zones so to speak, I don't believe that would give the territory the right to take away the slave-owner's property. It seems to me that if a state had to give full GF&C to another state that a territory would also be bound to give a state full GF&C.
Your point that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional I believe was exactly correct. So is your reasoning regarding slavery in the territories.
So whether a territory was slave free or not, I think Dred Scott was properly decided certain questionable parts of the opinion notwithstanding.
It had a few erroneous opinions in it, such as the claim that Blacks could never be citizens. This is obviously untrue because there were many blacks subjects prior to the Declaration, and the Declaration certainly did not take that away from them. Since no citizens existed prior to the Declaration, it is presumed that when all the other subjects were converted to citizens, then so too were the Black subjects.
But the bulk of it is correct according to the laws of that time period.