Dread Scott decision - 150 years later.

[Iriemon]

It what is perhaps the low point in US Supreme Court jurisprudence, the decision in [Dred] Scott v. Stanford, was decided March 6, 1857, 150 years ago.

In it, the Supreme Court ruled that negros were not citizens of the United States, and therefore had no rights under American law. The Court wrote:

"A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States."

Scott v. Sandford.

The proposition in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" was dismissed by Chief Justice Taney:

"It is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration," Taney, a former slave owner, wrote at the time.

Harvard re-examines Dred Scott decision - Yahoo! News

A blue ribbon panel held a mock hearing on the decision, and lauded our current system of justice compared to the immorality of the Court's Scott decision 150 years ago.

The United States today uses the highest principles that we're all familiar with _ democracy, justice, rights and responsibility _ but that's not what the country was in 1857," Payton said.

Former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr said the case has a lesson for judges. Besides being racist and morally bankrupt, the Dred Scott decision also reflected the arrogance of judges like Taney, who tried to elevate themselves over the U.S. Constitution, he said.

"This is an enduring lesson — this isn't just a history lesson — for judges including of course justices of our Supreme Court to be humble, because Chief Justice Taney was anything but humble," Starr said. "Quite apart from its immorality as a matter of natural justice and fairness, it also showed the arrogance on the part of the Supreme Court."

FOXNews.com - Harvard Re-Examines Dred Scott Decision - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Yet today, conservatives use the exact same rationale to justify denying basic rights as the conservatives of 150 years ago used -- arguing that people locked away indefinitel without hearings, trials or proof by the U.S. government are not entitled to basic, fundamental rights, because they are not US citizens.

Chief Justice Cheney, I mean, Taney, would be proud of today's conservatives.

 

[Lightdemon]

Interesting parallel. But I think the Dred Scott decision was more based on satisfying a situation of imminent civil war.

It was an attempt to keep the otherside (the south) pacified, though the tension was hardly cooled by this.

All in all, an interesting read. I rate it a 6/10.

 

[Jerry]

It what is perhaps the low point in US Supreme Court jurisprudence, the decision in [Dred] Scott v. Stanford, was decided March 6, 1857, 150 years ago.

In it, the Supreme Court ruled that negros were not citizens of the United States, and therefore had no rights under American law. The Court wrote:

"A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States."

Scott v. Sandford.

The proposition in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" was dismissed by Chief Justice Taney:

"It is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration," Taney, a former slave owner, wrote at the time.

Harvard re-examines Dred Scott decision - Yahoo! News

A blue ribbon panel held a mock hearing on the decision, and lauded our current system of justice compared to the immorality of the Court's Scott decision 150 years ago.

The United States today uses the highest principles that we're all familiar with _ democracy, justice, rights and responsibility _ but that's not what the country was in 1857," Payton said.

Former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr said the case has a lesson for judges. Besides being racist and morally bankrupt, the Dred Scott decision also reflected the arrogance of judges like Taney, who tried to elevate themselves over the U.S. Constitution, he said.

"This is an enduring lesson — this isn't just a history lesson — for judges including of course justices of our Supreme Court to be humble, because Chief Justice Taney was anything but humble," Starr said. "Quite apart from its immorality as a matter of natural justice and fairness, it also showed the arrogance on the part of the Supreme Court."

FOXNews.com - Harvard Re-Examines Dred Scott Decision - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Yet today, conservatives use the exact same rationale to justify denying basic rights as the conservatives of 150 years ago used -- arguing that people locked away indefinitel without hearings, trials or proof by the U.S. government are not entitled to basic, fundamental rights, because they are not US citizens.

Chief Justice Cheney, I mean, Taney, would be proud of today's conservatives.

Learn the difference between "basic human right" and "civil right", then list the top 10 "basic human rights" ((not "civil rights")) which we Evil Conservatives are denying whom.

Link your sources.

 

[Iriemon]

Learn the difference between "basic human right" and "civil right", then list the top 10 "basic human rights" ((not "civil rights")) which we Evil Conservatives are denying whom.

Link your sources.

Apparently the right to a trial and to sue is one of those technical "civil" rights that don't apply "all men created equal," eh Mr. Taney?

 

[Jerry]

Apparently the right to a trial and to sue is one of those technical "civil" rights that don't apply "all men created equal," eh Mr. Taney?

Who the hell is Mr. Taney?

Yes the right to due process is a civil right, not a human right.

A human right would be the right to breath, eat, and drink, access to medical care, shelter and similar.

Due process, like voting, only applies to US citizens, not the entire homosapien species.

 

[Lightdemon]

Who the hell is Mr. Taney?

Yes the right to due process is a civil right, not a human right.

A human right would be the right to breath, eat, and drink, access to medical care, shelter and similar.

Due process, like voting, only applies to US citizens, not the entire homosapien species.

Hmmmm, interesting. But if you'll remember history, the founders of this country believed in inalienable rights that are self evident, one of them (perhaps the one that is most important to them) being taxation only with representation.

That means that voting is actually a human right, not just civil right, according to the founders of this country.

 

[Iriemon]

Who the hell is Mr. Taney?

Yes the right to due process is a civil right, not a human right.

A human right would be the right to breath, eat, and drink, access to medical care, shelter and similar.

Due process, like voting, only applies to US citizens, not the entire homosapien species.

Taney was the author of the Scott decision and Chief Justice at the time.

The right of due process -- that is, the right to not have your liberty taken away unless the Govt proves you did something wrong in a procedure that has basic rules of fairness -- is a core right that is recognized both in the constitution as originally drafted as well as the bill of rights and other amendments. The right to liberty was a core human right explicitly identified in the Declaration of Independence -- "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that was held out to be a right endowed upon men as a self-evident truth.

If the right to liberty -- and correspondent to that the right that liberty not be taken away without basic due process, is not a basic human right in our country, then nothing is.

 

[Iriemon]

Who the hell is Mr. Taney?

Yes the right to due process is a civil right, not a human right.

A human right would be the right to breath, eat, and drink, access to medical care, shelter and similar.

Due process, like voting, only applies to US citizens, not the entire homosapien species.

Taney was the author of the Scott decision and Chief Justice at the time.

The right of due process -- that is, the right to not have your liberty taken away unless the Govt proves you did something wrong in a procedure that has basic rules of fairness -- is a core right that is recognized both in the constitution as originally drafted as well as the bill of rights and other amendments. The right to liberty was a core human right explicitly identified in the Declaration of Independence -- "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that was held out to be a right endowed upon men as a self-evident truth.

If the right to liberty -- and correspondent to that the right that liberty not be taken away without basic due process, is not a basic human right in our country, then nothing is.

 

[Jerry]

Hmmmm, interesting. But if you'll remember history, the founders of this country believed in inalienable rights that are self evident, one of them (perhaps the one that is most important to them) being taxation only with representation.

That means that voting is actually a human right, not just civil right, according to the founders of this country.

Said rights were issued by God, according to the founding fathers. Do you really want to go there?

 

[Jerry]

Taney was the author of the Scott decision and Chief Justice at the time.

The right of due process -- that is, the right to not have your liberty taken away unless the Govt proves you did something wrong in a procedure that has basic rules of fairness -- is a core right that is recognized both in the constitution as originally drafted as well as the bill of rights and other amendments. The right to liberty was a core human right explicitly identified in the Declaration of Independence -- "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that was held out to be a right endowed upon men as a self-evident truth.

If the right to liberty -- and correspondent to that the right that liberty not be taken away without basic due process, is not a basic human right in our country, then nothing is.

Said rights were "endowed by their Creator", which the DoI defines as "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

Trying to mix Natural Law with Positive Law will bear you no fruit.

 

[Iriemon]

Said rights were "endowed by their Creator", which the DoI defines as "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

Trying to mix Natural Law with Positive Law will bear you no fruit.

What difference does that make?

 

[Jerry]

What difference does that make?

Heh, well, okay, go ahead and pose an argument which will bear no fruit if that's what you want.

 

[Iriemon]

Heh, well, okay, go ahead and pose an argument which will bear no fruit if that's what you want.

I don't understand the relevance of the distinction you make, even assuming it is a valid distinction as the terms were used by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

In the Dred Scott case, the US Supreme Court upheld the the deprivation of liberty without due process on the basis that the persons at issue (black men) were not US citizens.

Most would agree that whether that proposition (black men are not citizens)could be technically maintained or not, it is wrong as a principle to deprive a person of his liberty without due process, because this is a fundamental right for which all men are created equal -- whether US citizens or not.

Today, our Govt is depriving liberty without due process on the basis that the persons at issue (anyone deemed by the Govt to be connected with terrorists) are not US citizens.

If we are to take anything from the self-evident principles upon which our nation is founded -- that all men are created equal, then the argument that our Govt can deprive people of their liberty without basic due process because they are not citizens is just as wrong today as it was when it was used as an excuse to deprive black men of their liberty 150 years ago.

 

[Jerry]

I don't understand the relevance of the distinction you make, even assuming it is a valid distinction as the terms were used by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

In the Dred Scott case, the US Supreme Court upheld the the deprivation of liberty without due process on the basis that the persons at issue (black men) were not US citizens.

Most would agree that whether that proposition (black men are not citizens)could be technically maintained or not, it is wrong as a principle to deprive a person of his liberty without due process, because this is a fundamental right for which all men are created equal -- whether US citizens or not.

Today, our Govt is depriving liberty without due process on the basis that the persons at issue (anyone deemed by the Govt to be connected with terrorists) are not US citizens.

If we are to take anything from the self-evident principles upon which our nation is founded -- that all men are created equal, then the argument that our Govt can deprive people of their liberty without basic due process because they are not citizens is just as wrong today as it was when it was used as an excuse to deprive black men of their liberty 150 years ago.

The only way I see to solve the problem you speak of is to solve it the same as Dred was solved: I recommend the creation of an amendment to that end.

150 yeas ago blacks were not US citizens, and it follows perfectly that any non citizen would not have civil rights afforded to citizens. Therefore, I recommend the formation of an amendment.

Is this not an equitable and viable solution?

If you agree with this concept, what would you recommend the amendment say? Are there currently any movements to that end?

 

[Iriemon]

The only way I see to solve the problem you speak of is to solve it the same as Dred was solved: I recommend the creation of an amendment to that end.

150 yeas ago blacks were not US citizens, and it follows perfectly that any non citizen would not have civil rights afforded to citizens. Therefore, I recommend the formation of an amendment.

Is this not an equitable and viable solution?

If you agree with this concept, what would you recommend the amendment say? Are there currently any movements to that end?

Haven't thought about an amendment.

The recognition or at least consideration of the problem is all I had asked.

 

[Iriemon]

Interesting parallel. But I think the Dred Scott decision was more based on satisfying a situation of imminent civil war.

It was an attempt to keep the otherside (the south) pacified, though the tension was hardly cooled by this.

All in all, an interesting read. I rate it a 6/10.

I'm not sure either of those assertions are necessarily correct. In 1857 there was certainly strife between the North and South, tho' I don't know if folks were thinking civil war was imminent. More questionable was the court's motivation -- Taney was a former slave holder, and "staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression" according to Dred Scott case

Also, I hadn't noticed this part of the decision:

The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories

If Taney's goal was to avoid conflict, illegitimizing the great compromise was not a step in that direction.

 

[Lightdemon]

I'm not sure either of those assertions are necessarily correct. In 1857 there was certainly strife between the North and South, tho' I don't know if folks were thinking civil war was imminent. More questionable was the court's motivation -- Taney was a former slave holder, and "staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression" according to Dred Scott case

Also, I hadn't noticed this part of the decision:

The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories

If Taney's goal was to avoid conflict, illegitimizing the great compromise was not a step in that direction.

The north and the south was always at each other when ever the economy was bad. This became quite apparent when Maryland seceded from the Union in 1861. Lincoln, president at the time I believe, had to send in a good amount of troops to suppress the uprising.

Maybe you're right, that Americans might not have been thinking of civil war, but it wasn't very far from it. The north and south division had never been so tense. Maryland, was something that triggered the idea of seceding from the Union.

But before all of this there were many legislations that tried to ease the tensions of both sides. When Missouri became a state, it became quite a hot debate on whether it would be a slave state or not. It only became a state, with the agreement of cutting another state in half, which became Maine and Mass.

There were also many stories of northerners who would break into prisons in the south and free the slaves who were put in jail. A book that I read titled, "Celia: A Slave" gave some very nice details about this. Celia, was being tried under a southern court for murdering her master because he was raping her. If I remember correctly, as it has been years since I read this book, Celia would be hanged before she had a chance for a trial. Northerners broke into the jail and held Celia captive until time came for her trial. Nevertheless, she was a slave, thus having no rights, was found guilty of murdering her master, despite her argument that she was commiting self-defense.

Sorry, got a little bit carried away with details there, but you may be right, Americans might not have been thinking civil war, but from the way I see it, they have never really gotten along anyway. Even the writing of the Federal Constitution marked thier differences.

The Dred Scott case, imo, was a way to ease some of the south's anger. Though of course you could argue that he was biased to begin with. But the balancing act that was needed to appease both sides needed great skill. It was Henry Clay, "the great compromiser," who fortunately had this talent. I'm just saying the Dred Scott case, along with many other things, were attempts to appease both sides as to not provoke a civil war.

_____

Regarding the topic though, I see the irony you are trying to show. In a country that was founded by the belief that all men are created equal, it certainly isn't true, or at least only true if you're a citizen. Democracy, liberty, and freedom only belong to those who live in this country. Well....for certain people who live in this country.

 

[Lightdemon]

Said rights were issued by God, according to the founding fathers. Do you really want to go there?

Have you ever heard of the Iroquoi Confederation?

If you have, then you know that the constitution of the IC is remarkably similar to the United State's Federal Constitution. Only it predates it by some hundreds of years. The IC had 3 branches: executive, judicial, and legislative. The legislative branch was also bicameral. Benjamin Franklin was known to visit the Iroquois frequently and participate in thier politics.

But take a look at the Declaration of Independace. Which God do you think our founders were referring to? Look at the DoI, it refers to Nature's God over and over again. Furthermore, the writing of the DoI indicates a separation from the active Christian God, and subscribes more to a Deistic God combined with a God of Nature.

So I don't really understand your question here. I think you misunderstood the context of how the DoI was written. I suspect that you think the founders of this nation were some kind of highly religious people, but they were not. Many of them tended to be Utilitarians.

Furthermore, the rights were not really "issued" by God. It was self-evident. To them it was natural for people to have certain rights. This was because of thier ideology.

The point is that what our founders had framed in writing the constitution did not meant to be what it means today. The vision was a representative democracy that upheld the rights of the populace. Democracy was a weapon against tyranny. I don't know what it is today though.

But I'm interested in know what is the difference between Natural Law and Positive Law. Please explain.