Thursday, January 22, 2009
Strict Constructionism would not have freed Dred Scott
According to this. It seems clearly right that the constitution did not affirm the right of a Negro slave to liberty. If it had, the Southern states would never have signed on to it. It does affirm the property rights of the owners. Therefore, if the job of the Supreme Court is to just interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench, Dred Scott goes back to his owner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If only there were some way to amend the constitution...
The support of strict constructionist judges by pro life advocates is more likely utilitarian than idealistic.
Mike Darus: "The support of strict constructionist judges by pro life advocates is more likely utilitarian than idealistic."
*eyeroll*
VR: "... Therefore, if the job of the Supreme Court is to just interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench, Dred Scott goes back to his owner."
And your problem is?
Your problem is, of course, that you do not -- or will not -- understand that the US Constitution is not the Gospel.
Though, of course, there is more to the case than the USSC merely ordering him sent him back to the slaver ... the court was invalidating the law of a non-slave State which set the man free when he came under that State's jurisdiction and appealed to its laws.
It seems to me that 'scrict constitutionalism' *would* have freed Dred Scott. For, after all, the US Constitution does not (as originally written) *mandate* slavery, but merely allows it.
Please consider using "kidnaper" or "captor" instead of "owner," unless you believe that someone may acquire property rights over another by using violence.
Recognizing someone as human does not change the law, but it does change which laws apply.
Which Country was not acquired and therefor has property rights over another without using violence.
Post a Comment