Deliberately misstating my position. Why am I not surprised.
I am not "For" Dred Scott. I merely recognize that it is a correct interpretation of the laws in existence at the time it was rendered. If it were not so, then there would have been no need to pass amendments to repeal the Dred Scott decision.
As for Kelo v New London, the seizure of private property by a tyrannical government to give to someone else for the purpose of making profit, and that ultimately failed to do anything beneficial for anyone... I am not surprised that you support it, but I think the vast majority of conservatives on this Web site are completely against it.
Why address the underlying issue of the suit; whether states or the government had the right to ban slave ownership within their borders or in federal territory?
Under the law of the time, it was an assault on property rights. Property rights are fundamental and cannot be impugned by a State. Same thing with Kelo.
You're not against Kelo? That's a change from your posts from a few weeks ago.
I am not "For" Dred Scott. I merely recognize that it is a correct interpretation of the laws in existence at the time it was rendered. If it were not so, then there would have been no need to pass amendments to repeal the Dred Scott decision.
And what is the Constitutional foundation for his conclusion that free blacks were not and could never be citizens?
As for Kelo v New London, the seizure of private property by a tyrannical government to give to someone else for the purpose of making profit, and that ultimately failed to do anything beneficial for anyone... I am not surprised that you support it, but I think the vast majority of conservatives on this Web site are completely against it.
We can argue till the cows come home as to whether or not the Connecticut Supreme Court decision allowing the property to be condemned and sold to a private party was the correct one. But I do not understand how someone like you, with your alleged reverence for the 10th Amendment and state's rights, can condemn the U.S. Supreme Court for deciding that, right or wrong, Connecticut could make her own habeas corpus decisions for herself without the "fedgov", to use your tired expression, stepping in and telling her what to do. What is the alternative? The Federal Government define what is allowable under habeas corpus? Many states after the Kelo decision passed laws severely restricting the use of habeas corpus. Are you suggesting that they needed to get Federal permission before they could do so?
Under the law of the time, it was an assault on property rights. Property rights are fundamental and cannot be impugned by a State. Same thing with Kelo.
Yes but the Court first ruled that Scott, being a black man, was not a citizen of the U.S. and therefore could not take his case to the federal courts. Since the whole case was invalid to begin with then any mention of property rights and the constitutionality of the Missouri compromise were made in dicta and were not binding.
Substitue “eminent domain” for “habeas corpus”. It’s been a long week.