The purpose of US courts is not the law, and certainly not the due process of law. In the US the courts inherit the simple common law purpose of settling disputes between people, rather than allow those disputes to go unresolved and thus provoke chaos and violence. Towards that purpose a Judge must take some cases under an extralegal basis if no other standing avails. To provide a hearing of facts and reach a judgment that settles a disturbance that is or could become a danger to the peace.
The Constitution recognizes that simple principle and need in the preamble with the following words: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility"
Is that too hard a task, too hard for vain men who take pride in marshaling complex chains of stare decisis into perfected shackles of legalistic logic. The result of such prideful vanity ends up bloody when it wholly supplants the real reason for courts.
That being to Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility. Legalistic "Due Process" is not JUSTICE. It wasn't in Dred Scott and it is not here. The legitimate compliant has been refused hearing! Again and again -- just like the wanderings of poor Dred Scott from court to court in seeking justice.
He was denied! The result was civil war.
Dredd Scott didn't have standing either.Syllabus A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
60 U.S. 393
Scott v. Sandford
Argued: --- Decided:
... his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.
There was no Civil War. Lincoln invaded the South. Loss of Southern money going up North was the reason. Dred scott had nothing to do with it.