Supremacy. In this case the par that says the Constitution "...and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." South Carolina's law that allowed them to seize British Subjects and sell them into slavery was a violation of agreements made with the Great Britain. That should trump state law, and would to any lawyer who's agenda didn't override their understanding of the Constitution.
You want a living Constitution? He was a strict constructionist.
Absolute nonsense.
Asinine? 7-2 is hardly asinine.
One justice wrote the opinion, not seven. One justice put his pre-conceived agenda into that opinion, not seven. And only one found restrictions in the Constitution that no sane man would find.
f the Constitution supported federal citizenship for blacks, we wouldn't have needed the 14th Amendment. Where in the document can you find support for any other asinine interpretation?
The 14th Amendment was required to override the Scott v. Sanford decision. Nothing in the Constitution can be read as denying citizenship based on race, with the specific exception of Indians.
The South Carolina law allowed for the blacks to be held while foreign vessels were in port - they knew beforehand. The law was in response the alarm caused the prior year by a failed slave revolt in Charleston led by former slave Denmark Vesey.
When the vessel left the ship's captain had to pay the costs of detainment. New York had laws similar allowing them to "quarantine" entire ships, just as other northern states prohibited the entry of free blacks. A little biased in your position?
SC Justice Johnson, sitting on the 6th Circuit court, did rule against the state in a habeas corpus petition, be refused to issue the writ [Elkison v. Deliesseline, 8 Fed. Cas. 493, 494 (1823)].
In his 1832 opinion Taney wrote,
The Constitution it is true has declared that a Treaty shall be the supreme law. But in order to make it so the stipulations must be within the Treaty making power. A Treaty would be void which interfered with the powers expressly delegated to Congress. So it would be void if it came in conflict with rights reserved to the states. ...It may be said however that the law of S. Carolina is more severe and oppressive than is necessary for its own protection. Upon examining its provisions I am ready to admit that milder measures would I think have secured the object and would have created less dissatisfaction.