PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #161
Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:
Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)
No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:
“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Robert Bork disagrees with you.
He called the decision a mistake.
And credits it with starting the Civil War.
I believe that he stated Tanney should have just refused standing to Scott and let it be at that.
Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.
"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine
So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.
AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.
Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.
If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.
Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:
"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.-"
We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!
Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.
The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.
But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.
Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.
EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.
You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "
For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.
It endorses, as you do, slavery.
You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.
Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.
The vulgarity.....
It appears I've gotten under your scales simply by quoting you.
This:
You wrote:
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "
For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.
It endorses, as you do, slavery.
You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.
I quoted you accurately, didn't I?