Just out of curiosity, is the OP expecting our personal opinions of the decision or our legal opinions of the decision, because they aren’t the same.
Dred Scott was a terrible decision. Even if you put aside the consequences of it (the Civil War and all that), which I don’t know if you can, even if you look at it in a vacuum, it was a terrible decision. First, it was textbook political decision making. Taney hoped, by taking the case, to settle the slavery question and take it out of the political arena. Second, the amount of ex parte communication around the case was, even for the more relaxed standards of the time, improper. You have one of the Justices lobby the President-Elect to put pressure to get one of the other Justices to join the decision. You have the Chief Justice privately telling the President-elect what the court has decided before the court issues its decision so that the President-elect can use his advanced knowledge to score political points. You have the Chief Justice, after he orally gives his decision on the bench, refuse to give a written copy of his decision to a dissenting Justice, and then rewrite the decision that he’s already given orally in order to answer criticism of the decision.
But even if we put all that aside, it’s a bad decision. First, by ruling that blacks who claim to be erroneously held as slaves have no standing to sue for their freedom, it threw out decades of state and federal jurisprudence that did just that. It even reverses the decision made in Strader v Graham, written just 6 years before by Taney, which said that the legal status of a slave depends on the place of residence of the slave and his master.
Beyond that, 3/4 of the decision is dicta, but dicta that Taney apparently thought had the force of law. He’s saying “This is a plaintiff in error, and we have no grounds to hear the case, but, oh yeah, any state or federal laws outlawing slavery anywhere are unconstitutional.”
In addition, he creates, apparently out of whole cloth, some specific right to own slaves that has special Constitutional protection beyond any other property ownership, he cites legislative history to prove his point that’s factually wrong (like saying that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, no state recognized blacks as citizens, when I think either 9 or 11 state allowed free blacks to be citizens). And, it says that neither states nor the federal government can pass laws limiting slavery.
You say that it’s the legislature and not the courts that are the proper venue to abolish slavery, but the Dred Scott decision said that legislation that would abolish slavery was Unconstitutional. It does the opposite of what you’re suggesting. Sorry, I know it’s a hijack, but…
This is another good reason to keep the motto. To remind everyone that the reason the South got their butts kicked was because they were against God.
Laughable. The court subjects itself to ridicule by such nonsense.
As to those who say it’s trivial, I say this: there is a standard dialogue that occurs during negotiations over contractual terms that goes like this… Every commercial lawyer is familar with the dance:
Lawyer A: “My client wants clause 23 removed”
Lawyer B: “Awww, don’t worry about that one, my client would never use it against someone like your client, the subject will never come up, it’s trivial”
Lawyer A: “OK, so its a clause that’s trivial and will never be used. Your client is fine with us taking it out then, right?”
Lawyer B: “Uhh, well…”
I absolutely acknowledge the dicta, and the improper ex parte maneuvering.
But what was needed to outlaw slavery was, in fact, a Constitutional amendment.
However, you’ve raised more doubts with me – I’ll reread the decision.
How “in fact” was the Federal government prohibited from outlawing slavery in Federal territories without a constitutional amendment? What is the factual part of that?
Er… I was referring to the total outlawing of slavery – the ability to override a state law permitting slavery.
Ok, well that’s just a non-sequitir, since that’s not what Dred Scott is about.
That’s right - as long as they establish more than one, then it’s okey-dokey with the First Amendment. So, for example, Congress could pass laws that favor the Southern Baptists and the World Baptist Alliance, and since that’s more than one religion, it would be fine. Tell the Methodists to suck it!
I agree with Shodan. Printing something on currency is clearly an act of the government. A statement about whether or not God exists and whether or not we trust him are clearly religious opinions. So printing “In God We Trust” on currency is the government officially endorsing a religious belief. And I don’t see how the government can endorse one religious belief in preference to others without calling it an establishment of that religion. And, as others have pointed out, the fact that Congress went to the trouble of having the motto added to currency shows that Congress felt it had significance.
True, and I am beginning to realize I completely forgot all the dicta shit that was in Dred Scott.
Can I take this as your admission that “the Dred Scott decision was a substantive due process case” crap you’ve been peddling for years here was, in fact, bullshit?
As others have said, Taney ruled that neither the federal government nor the states had the power to abolish slavery. Taney insisted that slavery was mandatory.
He also went beyond that point and ruled that all black people, regardless of whether they were slaves or free, had no legal rights.
What Taney was claiming had no foundation in the Constitution, legal precedents, or history. He was just ruling his personal beliefs into law. It was a blatant example of judicial activism.
I wasn’t aware that outlawing slavery was ever on the table in the Dred Scott case. I thought the issue was about what happens when you transport a slave across state lines into a free state or territory. Surely, even the most abolitionist-friendly ruling that could have come out of that case would still have permitted slavery in those states where it was legal?
Wow, Dred Scott not a bad decision? :smack:
Even high school history teachers disagree:
Entirely consistent with prior law. Incorrect decision. Dred Scot was entirely consistent with all previous human history. Yet is was illogical, immoral and wrong. Same with Plessey v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. US.
The reason it is wrong is because it endorses monotheism, the implication being the Christian kind. As a Christian, I’m not worried that the government might suddenly demand I sacrifice to Kali, I’d just like to see human history establish the precedent of separation of church and state so that future civilizations can avoid future versions of The Crusades, Muslim conquests, the 30 years war and all the other religious wars.
As for the court’s reasoning that my religion is trivial or that it is meaningless ceremonial deism, I find that rather insulting and an impingement on my free exercise thereof. Jesus didn’t go to law school, but “render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s and render unto God what is God’s” if frankly a superior legal, political and religious analysis.
Either way, the republic will survive this ruling and others exactly like it.
The Second Stone: Complete agreement with every point you made. Well written and reasoned.
Including the last point: we’ll survive it.
(Hell, if the Republic survived the Jefferson/Burr farrago, and that little unpleasantness in '61, we can survive anything!)
2nd Stone: Can you quote the part of the decision that said your religion was trivial?
Bricker: Can you explain how this decision passes the Lemon Test:
*1. The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)
-
The statute must not advance or inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
-
The statute must have a secular legislative purpose (also known as the Purpose Prong)*
I can understand 1 and 2, but 3? What “secular legislative purpose” does this serve?
Well, maybe if “In God We Trust” was printed in some elaborate font that was difficult to counterfeit… Of course, any such phrase would serve.