Yes. I also have books about the case and have sat in, as an adult, on at least one college course which was exclusively about the case.
Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s opinion ... imposed a rigid rather than a flexible construction on the Constitution
Ooooh, a "flexible construction"! Just like Hillary wants.
Around here instead of rigid we say original intent as does Clarence Thomas. Rigid, absured(sic) Taney was joined by six other justices.
ML/NJ
>> Ooooh, a “flexible construction”! Just like Hillary wants. <<
Oooooh! You found one phrase to dismiss the entire argument. Is that the sum of your analytical skill? The author was calling Taney INCONSISTENT and therefore indefensible no matter WHAT your legal philosophy. Rigid in one place, yet “tortured meanings out of other, more-obscure clauses.”
>> Around here instead of rigid we say original intent as does Clarence Thomas. Rigid, absured(sic) Taney was joined by six other justices. <<
Strict (rigid) constructionism is not the same thing as original intent. How did you study law so much and make such a profoundly ignorant mistake? Their similarities end in that they are both textualist schools of interpretation and therefore hated by Living Constitution types.
Now, care to tell me where in the Constitution blacks are forbidden from citizenship? Or how one can be a citizen of a state, but not the nation?