And yet even after I quoted a snippet from Taney’s Majority opinion and highlighted the pertinent points to our discussion you chose to ignore them by claiming the case was about a slave. That’s obvious. But what is overlooked is how Taney defined to whom the Constitution pertained and was beneficial to. The citizens of the United States.
But what is overlooked is how Taney defined to whom the Constitution pertained and was beneficial to. The citizens of the United States.
That is not an accurate reading of Dred Scott.
If you want to debate case law, then fine. However, reading a case is formalistic. As a matter of law, Dredd doesn’t support your view the word “person” in the 5th Amendment is applicable only to citizens.
First, the factual issues before the Court can narrow its Holding. From Dredd: “Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.”
That is a narrow factual issue that doesn’t touch upon the meaning of “person” in the 5th Amendment in the broad manner you contend. The focus is narrowed to A.) a negro B.) whose ancestors were imported, BECOME C.) be a member of the political community to enjoy the rights and privileges.
That leaves untouched the vast see of people who ARE NOT negroes, which is to say Dredd doesn’t comment upon that class of people who aren’t negreos, are not citizens, and whether they can claim protections under any part of the Constitution.
Taney explicitly tells the reader his focus is narrow, when he said,”It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States.”
Do you understand now? Tandy IS NOT asserting the Constitution and its rights, privileges, and protections are only for citizens. He specifically tells the reader the opinion is much more narrow. Come on man!
I see no point in continuing since the conclusion will be the same. You may have the last word
The conclusion of you misreading a case, like Dredd Scott, and my having to correct you? That is avoidable, if you could be bothered to actually read the opinion, all of it, and understand what was said in the opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk