again, no. the point of the constitution is to expressly limit the powers granted to the common government. if they had no right expressly delegated to them to confiscate people’s property, then they had no such right. there are no such “implied by the whims of the day” rights within a rule of law that chains the actions of men.
you argued IV.3 in the context of the federal government having a right to abolish an institution that was NOT abolished anywhere in the constitution or laws at that time. you have failed to provide where such an implied right is located in that charter of negative liberties (don’t keep wasting your time because no such right existed). but until you find that magic bullet, you have said nothing of value.
and of course dred scott was a constitutionally-accurate ruling, if that’s what you mean by “good”, which is the only valid way to ask it. in terms of moral “good vs bad”, a different but valid question could be “were the laws that taney had to uphold ‘morally’ good?”, and to that the obvious counter would be “is it the job of the judge to rule as the man perceives good/bad that day, or is it simply to uphold the letter of (and rule by) the law?”
legislatures alter laws, judges uphold them, executive enforces them. doesn’t get simpler than that.
when one branch encroaches upon the duties of the other, then the separation of powers disintegrate and begin their consolidation into a branch. taney understood this and acted constitutionally. lincoln understood this and started the consolidation (being so bold as trying to arrest taney, initiate wars, arrest without warrant, etc. etc.) Congress sat by and watch, that is until they started covering up big L’s tracks with amendments and laws passed without constitutional representation.
got it?
Do you believe that states had the power to regulate slavery within their borders?
you argued IV.3 in the context of the federal government having a right to abolish an institution that was NOT abolished anywhere in the constitution or laws at that time
I argued that the clause gives the federal government the right to govern the territories, and that includes regulating slavery within them.
and of course dred scott was a constitutionally-accurate ruling
So you agree then, that blacks, at least until the 14th amendment was passed, had "no rights that the white man was bound to respect."
And for the third time, have you bothered to read the Record of the Constitutional Convention to which I provided a link?
I might agree with that if you can point to where the words 'expressed' or 'expressly' are to be found in the Constitution.
and of course dred scott was a constitutionally-accurate ruling, if that’s what you mean by “good”
And what part of the Constitution supports the idea that the states determine who can or cannot be a U.S. citizen? Or which supports Taney's conclusion that blacks are "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect?"
got it?
Oh yeah.