Roe and Dred Scott are but two instances where the principles laid out in the DOI and affirmed in the 5th and 14th Amendments were violated. They are blatant examples of a majority stepping on the inalienable rights of a defenseless minority.
So what should one do when deciding between the principles of the right to life and liberty vs strict contructionalism? It is evident to me that certain principles should indeed be inalienable and not subject to the whim of court majorities or plebiscites.
Given a choice, I would vote for the man or woman who espoused the principles set forth in the DOI, 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment rather than the man or woman who pledged to rule based only on strict construction when ruling on a basis of strict construction would violate the founding principles of this nation.
And now a question for you my friend. Would you vote to affirm a man or woman who pledged to strictly follow the constitution and affirm a black man to be less than a person or a man or woman of principle who understood that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."?
Well done! And THAT is precisely why the DOI is the starting point that leads to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which was added. Would that someone had asked that question of the court considering the Dred Scott case!
It's an interesting question. I'd say at the moment, I'm leaning towards the former. I've actually been poking around looking for a good explanation for where old Chief Justice Taney was wrong. Didn't the Constitution say to count a black as 3/5s a person? Weren't they singled out in the Constitution as property? Didn't it take a Constitutional amendment to change that?
I want a justice to read the Constitution as is, without coming up with novel ways to advance the "spirit" of the document. Let the people amend it to be perfectly clear.