[DoodleDawg]

My position is that Article IV, section 2 already required this, and that Dred Scott merely affirmed what the Constitution already required.

Like I said, odd-ball theories. Though I must admit that you are one of the few people I've met to speak approvingly of the Scott v. Sandford decision.

[DiogenesLamp]

Like I said, odd-ball theories.

Nothing odd ball about it. Just because the vast majority of people want to believe a comforting fiction doesn't compel people with clear discernment to go along with it.

Though I must admit that you are one of the few people I've met to speak approvingly of the Scott v. Sandford decision.

Stop misconstruing my position. Just because I recognize that most of it is valid legal reasoning doesn't mean I approve of it.

I just don't interpret law based on my own personal preferences, I look at the inherent consistency and whether they conform to original intent, and whether I like or hate a law doesn't enter into it.