Dred Scott was Precedent... What say you Whiney Liberals?

[mal]

Dred Scott was Precedent... What say you Whiney Liberals?

"The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent..." from an e-mail from BarackObama.com, and in that, from the President.

So, if "Precedent" is Absolute, then I guess Dred Scott was Correct?

Too many on the Left are Irrational and Hysterical right now. It's called Losing... Learn to Deal with it... These instances won't be the Last.



peace...

 

[Wry Catcher]

As I understand it, Dread Scott v. Sanford (1973) was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, not as you imply, by a SC decision.
Comment?

 

[GHook93]

YEEESSSS I have a few negro coworkers that I think would do a great job cutting my grass and painting my house!

Mal where do you come up with this stuff!

 

[GHook93]

As I understand it, Dread Scott v. Sanford (1973) was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, not as you imply, by a SC decision.
Comment?

Dred Scott was about property rights and standing. First slaves were not citizens (like Taylor in Planet of the Aps) and couldn't seek judication by the courts. Black people were seen as Chattel (property) and the decision came down that the state couldn't deprive a person of their property rights without due process of the 5th amendment. Depriving a chattel requires due process, that is still good law. However, a person being Chattel, well obvious the 13th amendment did away with that (unless as punish a crime)!

 

[mal]

As I understand it, Dread Scott v. Sanford (1973) was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, not as you imply, by a SC decision.
Comment?

Dread?...

1973?...



peace...

 

[Wry Catcher]

As I understand it, Dread Scott v. Sanford (1973) was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, not as you imply, by a SC decision.
Comment?

Dread?...

1973?...



peace...

lol, I have no idea how or why I typed 1973. I stand corrected, the date was 1857. As for spelling, bfd. I dread those who feel the need to point out oversights or silly mistakes in typing.
Now, maybe you would be so kind as to correct the substantive part of my post, and, provide the USSC decision which superceded the 13th and 14th Amendments and over turned the precident set by Dred Scott v. Sanford.

 

[mal]

YEEESSSS I have a few negro coworkers that I think would do a great job cutting my grass and painting my house!

Mal where do you come up with this stuff!

What stuff?...



peace...

 

[Wry Catcher]

As I understand it, Dread Scott v. Sanford (1973) was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, not as you imply, by a SC decision.
Comment?

Dread?...

1973?...



peace...

lol, I have no idea how or why I typed 1973. I stand corrected, the date was 1857. As for spelling, bfd. I dread those who feel the need to point out oversights or silly mistakes in typing.
Now, maybe you would be so kind as to correct the substantive part of my post, and, provide the USSC decision which superceded the 13th and 14th Amendments and over turned the precident set by Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Well?

 

[mal]

Dread?...

1973?...



peace...

lol, I have no idea how or why I typed 1973. I stand corrected, the date was 1857. As for spelling, bfd. I dread those who feel the need to point out oversights or silly mistakes in typing.
Now, maybe you would be so kind as to correct the substantive part of my post, and, provide the USSC decision which superceded the 13th and 14th Amendments and over turned the precident set by Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Well?

Well, "Dread" was a Typo, and I Nitpicked a bit... But 1973?... Seriously, who were you Thinking about?... Norma L. McCorvey?



peace...

 

[Wry Catcher]

lol, I have no idea how or why I typed 1973. I stand corrected, the date was 1857. As for spelling, bfd. I dread those who feel the need to point out oversights or silly mistakes in typing.
Now, maybe you would be so kind as to correct the substantive part of my post, and, provide the USSC decision which superceded the 13th and 14th Amendments and over turned the precident set by Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Well?

Well, "Dread" was a Typo, and I Nitpicked a bit... But 1973?... Seriously, who were you Thinking about?... Norma L. McCorvey?



peace...

Hmmmm...in 1973 I was in transition from Leah to Margie, and now you've really got me thinking - oh to be 25 and single again.

 

[mal]

Well?

Well, "Dread" was a Typo, and I Nitpicked a bit... But 1973?... Seriously, who were you Thinking about?... Norma L. McCorvey?



peace...

Hmmmm...in 1973 I was in transition from Leah to Margie, and now you've really got me thinking - oh to be 25 and single again.

And a WOMAN!...

Name it!



peace...

 

[veritas]

Women were considered chattel too, until not very long ago........but of course they are persons, corporations are not persons.

 

[Toronado3800]

Ok, I give. What's the point? The Dred Scott Decision was probably constitutionally correct but morally corrupt.

Many folks who voted for the Constitution believed slavery to be a moral problem but accepted it as a form of compromise to create an imperfect union for the sake of any decent union at all.

Thank goodness for them amendments.

 

[mal]

Women were considered chattel too, until not very long ago........but of course they are persons, corporations are not persons.

Then neither are Unions...



peace...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Corporations are not 'persons' either, notwithstanding the headnotes which precede Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific RR .
The point made in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission relied on a headnote, a dubious foundation for legal reasoning and another USSC decision which adversely effects the very principles outlined in the mission statement known as the Preamble to our Constitution.
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, each of us, have but one vote and little ability to influence our members of Congress, and no ability to influence all members of Congress. A corporation, by means not limited to argument now has the ability to influence all laws, rules and regulations for the benefit of the corporation solely, which has the potential to cause harm to each of us individually.
Those who fly the banner of liberty and freedom ought to think of the consequences of this decision, for it affirms the right of a corporation - and a cartel - to not only influence electons, but to buy them.
It may not be the end of the world, but it surely makes a mockery of our stated policy to spread democracy around the world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wry was thinking about that famous 1973 case Sanford v. Son

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry was thinking about that famous 1973 case Sanford v. Son

"Wry was thinking..."; yes CFrank, Wry does think, and if you ever posted a substantive thoughful message Wry might think you think. As it stands, you seem to me to be a fool craving attention by posting half-witted idiotgrams.
If you actually thought, you might question why Wry's question to tha M has remained unanswered.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I maybe wrong, and CFrank may in fact not be as dumb as he presents. In the post prior to his 'idiotgram', I presented my thoughts on the consequence of CU v. FEC in regards to individual liberty and the power of anyone individual to influence the Congress.
CFranks subsequent post may have been an effort on his part to censor a potential substantive discussion of the consequence of an activist conservative SC on an individuals' liberty and ability to influence legislation - locally and nationally.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

As I understand it, Dread Scott v. Sanford (1973) was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, not as you imply, by a SC decision.
Comment?

Less a matter of the constitutional amendment, than General Grant and General Sherman.



I see what Malcontent wants to say. A better example than Dred Scott is Plessy Vs Fergesuon in 1898. That decision said it was ok for states to require separate accommodations for whites and blacks, as long as the accommodations were equal.

In 1956 the court looked at how the states were doing "separate but equal" and decided it was a farce, and said they couldn't do that any more. Tossed out 58 years of legal precedent.

Of course, I wouldn't have gone that way. The 14th Amendment, the way I read it anyway, explicitly forbade the kind of thing Plessy permitted. I would have just said "The constitution says this, we said that, we goofed, from now on we go with the text of the constitution rather than the sophistication of guys in black dresses."

 

[Truthmatters]

Just amazing to see the right defending the results of this decision.

Its the death nell for Democracy.

They have tried for years now to keep people from even respecting the word.