And another thing. A 'strict constructionist' would have found that Scott had no standing to bring his case to the Supreme Court since he was property and not a person, upheld the lower court ruling, and ended it there. But Taney was no constructionist. He was the worst kind of liberal jurist, finding all sorts of meaning in the Constitution to support he pre-conceived opinions.
Ya think?:
I think the authors of that notable instrument [the Declaration of Independence] intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon.Even Abraham Lincoln shared the view.