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.
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.