thank you for pointing out exactly what we’ve been saying.
neither example you provided from the USC outlawed slavery nor the slave trade:
- the first said congress could speak to the laws in the territories owned by the collective states, but could NOT prejudice the laws of any state in doing so. they could not not infringe upon any person’s native state rights (which slaves had none since they weren’t citizens) while traveling through the territories or other states. (of course to change residence to a different state would require becoming a citizen thereof and abiding by those laws, so the argument that “scott” would expand slavery through the north was bunk)
new states entering the union had as much sovereignty to decide the issue within their borders as the existing ones did, and congress could not affect that either.
- the second did not outlaw trade, but merely deferred the the power for congress to address the matter at a later date. when they did so in 1807, they passed a law (not an amendment) that was enforced as rigidly as our immigration laws today. if that’s the definition of “outlaw”, then i guess our borders are secure too.
taney did a better job than i of explaining it. of course no one questions the constitutional accuracy of his decision, they just find it “objectionable”. i find federal income tax objectionable but it’s the law of the land and i’d expect no judge to rule otherwise no matter what the popular sentiment is.
and the fact that dred scott was owned by an Northern ABOLITIONIST for 7 years prior to his trial apparently didn’t matter either. maybe Chafee just didn’t realize he married a slave-owner and that he could’ve ended the matter at any point.
Both provided the authority to outlaw slave imports and regulate slavery in the territories.
- the first said congress could speak to the laws in the territories owned by the collective states, but could NOT prejudice the laws of any state in doing so.
We must be looking at different versions of the Constitution. Mine says that Congress can make laws "respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." That would include all territories not organized and admitted as states. Until the 13th Amendment, Congress could do nothing slavery in any state where it existed, or force states to allow it if they chose not to.
they could not not infringe upon any person’s native state rights (which slaves had none since they weren’t citizens) while traveling through the territories or other states.
But should that person decide to establish a residence in a territory then Congress should, and I believe did, have the right to deny him the right to live there with his slave property unde the powers granted them under Article IV. Taney thought otherwise, and I believe his flawed decision would not have been upheld.
new states entering the union had as much sovereignty to decide the issue within their borders as the existing ones did, and congress could not affect that either.
Per the Kansas-Nebraska Act, yes. Congress gave them that authority, which Constitutionally they were empowered to do.
Unlike the Confederate Constitution, which denied the people of the new territories that choice. Slavery was mandated throughout the entire CSA.
the second did not outlaw trade, but merely deferred the the power for congress to address the matter at a later date. when they did so in 1807, they passed a law (not an amendment) that was enforced as rigidly as our immigration laws today. if that’s the definition of “outlaw”, then i guess our borders are secure too.
That is true. But the authority to end slave imports came from that Article I, Section 9 clause.
But where is this any different that the Confederate Consitution, which specifically protected slave imports? But which also gave the Confederate Congress the same out of being able to end it, not by amendment but by legislation?
of course no one questions the constitutional accuracy of his decision, they just find it “objectionable”.
ROTFLMAO!!!! The Constitutional accuracy of Taney's flawed decision has been questioned by people far more learned than you or I.
i find federal income tax objectionable but it’s the law of the land and i’d expect no judge to rule otherwise no matter what the popular sentiment is.
And I am sure that the existence of the 16th Amendment would make their job a lot easier. Taney had no such clause or amendment to justify his decision.
and the fact that dred scott was owned by an Northern ABOLITIONIST for 7 years prior to his trial apparently didn’t matter either. maybe Chafee just didn’t realize he married a slave-owner and that he could’ve ended the matter at any point.
That is not accurate. Ownership of Scott was held by Dr. Emerson's estate, managed by his widow's brother, John F. A. Sanford. Hence the name of the case, Scott v Sanford.