Posted on 03/06/2018 9:17:29 AM PST by Bull Snipe
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Tanney issues the verdict in the case Scott V. Sanford, aka the "Dred Scott Decision" The court finds that Scott cannot sue in Fedreal court for his freedom because, as a slave, he is not a citizen of the United States and therefore lacks standing to sue. That addresses the specific issue before the Court. However Tanney goes further in his decision. -Not only is Scott not a U.S. Citizen, there is no Constitutionally legal path for Scott or any slave to become a U.S. Citizen. -The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in any state where slavery is legal. -The Federal Government must enforce the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. -The Missouri Compromise is Unconstitutional.
Some consider the Dred Scott Decision to be the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court
We'll go round in circles!
President doesn't have the power to free slaves. Lincoln himself said this repeatedly.
If the President cannot do this, then how did he do this?
Now here is where you come up with some more circular justification for your claim.
How do you know this?
Secession isn't. Armed warfare against the central government is.
The "13th amendment" was just another fig leaf for their dictatorial use of power. No knowledgeable and sane person would believe that those states would have ever agreed to that without guns pointed at their head.
You prove your point. No sane, rational person would believe most of what you post.
Amazing. You are actually correct about something. We should write this date down.
Congress cannot deprive anyone of property with a blanket law directed at a class.
It was not directed at a class. It was directed at those supporting armed rebellion against the government.
That does not even resemble the "due process" referred to in the fifth amendment.
Your opinion again.
The Confiscation Acts gave him that power.
Taney's antipathy towards blacks aside, he was Chief Justice for almost 30 years and he handed down many decisions that upheld state's rights and curbed the power of the judiciary. If not for Dred Scott he most likely would have had, and deserved, a much higher place in history.
Circles.
Whether this be true or not, the Constitution does not have a "Unless they are engaged in rebellion" clause regarding constitutional rights. Until the 14th amendment, the only mention of rebellion in the constitution deals with representation. It does not deal with property rights or due process.
If you are going to make the claim that they didn't leave the Union, then they would have retained the constitutional rights of the Union. Therefore the Union could not have lawfully deprived them of their property.
Your opinion again.
My repetition of what is an actual fact, but which you pretend is my opinion.
There is no confusion regarding the meaning of "Due Process" as used in the fifth amendment. You can probably find it in every legal dictionary published since the nation began.
"Due Process" is a court proceeding. It is not a blanket law by congress, it is not an edict by the President.
You keep claiming to uphold the laws of the Union, and yet you are always taking extra-legal positions on these long understood matters of law.
When I point out the fallacy in one of your argument, you go onto the next argument which was founded on a previous fallacy.
Circles circles circles. That's all you do is go round in circles.
Another blinding flash of the obvious from you.
Congress cannot pass a law that overrides the constitution.
It didn't.
Lincoln had that power because Congress passed a law that overrides both the fifth amendment and Article IV, section 2.
So you keep saying. Yet it is your opinion alone.
Again, the Congress did not usurp the Constitution.
Until the 14th amendment, the only mention of rebellion in the constitution deals with representation. It does not deal with property rights or due process.
Article I, Section 7: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions..." Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
If you are going to make the claim that they didn't leave the Union, then they would have retained the constitutional rights of the Union. Therefore the Union could not have lawfully deprived them of their property.
When used to support the crime of armed rebellion then yes they can.
My repetition of what is an actual fact, but which you pretend is my opinion.
Facts are not facts just because in your opinion they are.
Taking property without due process is a violation of constitutional law.
I'll borrow a page from you. This is *YOUR* opinion. It is clear that congress did indeed violate the fifth amendment.
Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861
A little over a month before the South initiated it's armed rebellion, correct?
Complete nonsense. Read the decision of the Prize Cases. If you choose not to accept the Confiscation Acts as due process as required by the V Amendment, then the Supreme Court takes an even harsher view. By engaging in armed rebellion against the government, the citizens of the South waged war against the Unites States. They were traitors. Their property became enemy property. And as such, was subject to seizure as a prize of war.
That is true. But in the Decision, the court recognized that some states, made them citizens. The Court, in it’s opinion, determined that it did not make them citizens of the United States.
Repeating propaganda isn't correct. Secession is not rebellion. So says the Union Supreme Court justice.
The Union launched the first attack, but their defenders have written the history books, most of which leave out this salient point.
Four million people are not traitors unless you are a lunatic. The communists used to do this sort of thing, but four million people who make up a majority of the people in the land in which they live are a nation. According to the Declaration of Independence, and also according to Abraham Lincoln before he gained power, people have a right to be independent if they so wish.
That hair cannot be split. The compact between the states acknowledges that US citizens are the citizens of any state.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.