GraniteStater wrote:under the US Constitution, slavery could be legal, if a State enacted it as such. That didn't enjoin it on a polity.
Not how it's taught in Us law , constitution classes, if a right exists in one state to its citizens, then it exists in all states, and history classes,
I've been wrong about things before, but I'd be happy to be enlightened about this concept, of which I cannot recall having ever heard.
Does this mean that since Colorado has legalized the use of cannabis for medicinal and recreational purposes, that the citizens of all other states in the Union also have the same legal rights in their home states? D.C. and federal territories too?
hanny1 wrote: not least because the US Supreme Court ruled that slavery was lawful over the entire domain of the Union in every case up to 1860. I.e. Slavery was lawful in every state and all slave owners had the right to have their property protected. Dredd Scott being the last time it would point this fact out, reminding the free states that they were created with the NWT that contained a perpetual protection of slavery in any future State created, it's quaint you think the constitution which protects contracts and property rights over the entire Union, and Supreme Court rulings, and the treaty that allowed all the free states to become states provided they recognised slavery and property rights protection, are inferior to your incorrect opinion.
The Dredd Scott vs Sandford ruling didn't actually address slavery in its conclusion, although Taney spent much time defending it on the general basis of it being historical, that "negros" were historically deemed an inferior race, and that since the Constitution and the founding fathers did not address the status of blacks directly, blacks therefore had no legal standing within the U.S. other than an objective status of being owned.
The ruling addressed the status of Dredd Scoot being a black African, born into slavery in the U.S., and deemed him as not having the rights of a U.S. citizen, and therefore had no right to bring his case before the U.S. Supreme Court, for the court had no jurisdiction over non-citizens.
Further, the decision did not make slavery legal in all other states at all, nor was that even contested through it. It put into question, however, whether the Kansas-Nebraska act could actually forbid slavery within U.S. Territories, or if that right were reserved for the Territory Legislature itself. This was however never legally contested.
GraniteStater wrote:Go to Wikipedia and look for 'History of slavery in Massachusetts' See the discussion under Quock Walker vs. Jennison, viz.:
and yet I am correct and your still ignorant and uniformed. It states explicitly that no legislation abolished slavery until the 13th ended it in mass.
No, you are not. It states, "No legislation was passed that abolished slavery..." and "...slavery was a violation of ... the constitution of the commonwealth". The 1781-'83 court cases ruled that slavery was de facto illegal, because it violated, in modern terms, the basic human rights, which the court naturally granted blacks.
This is the major difference between the Massachusetts court case and the Dredd Scott ruling. The courts in MA deemed blacks to have person hood and therefore the same legal status of all white Americans, whereas Taney spent most of his decision arguing against exactly that, mostly on the basis, which might be rephrased as, --we've always done it this way, therefore it is justified--.
hanny1 wrote: try reading a book yourself, R Ransom teaching text in US universities, Conflict and compromise,The economics of slavery, for instances explains that the Constitution gave protection to slavery over the entire union, and congress could not limit it in the union at state or territorial condition, and that state law is inferior to federal law, a point your also ignorant off it appears. I used the us education system links that explain the facts, you use wiki that contradicts your claims, how quaint. Because that case did not abolish slavery in mass, the judge orbiter dictum comments are not law, slavery only exists by positive law, and the state constitution allowed slave ownership, was not changed by any court case and so slavery remained legal in mass until it ratified the 13th which ended law by positive legislation. not knowing how basic law works is also quaint.
You can therefore point to a specific instance supporting your claims?
BTW the MA cases do not have an orbiter dictum. The Dredd Scott case, however has a very strange one. First Taney states that the USSC does not have jurisdiction over the case, and then he writes hundreds of pages on an orbiter dictum defending his decision on the basis of tradition. All his arguments culminate in his statement, "... that they [blacks] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect ...", supported by the fact that it has always been so. This is a circular argument, and is invalid. It is also a know tactic of persons to argue for something, but have no actual argument, of which Taney obviously has little.
In my opinion, Taney's orbiter dictum amounts to a smoke screen to hide the fact, that his arguments are weak, and mostly based on tradition; traditions from a time before constitutional rights of free citizens were were not a widely known concept.
hanny1 wrote:Try finding a 14 year old who can show you how to use wiki correctly, rather than use it to show your own incompetence and ignorance, like not knowing the difference between being the first polity in history to abolish slavery, which was not mass, who was not even the firsts to abolish it while it was in the union, and which was the first polity to do so. Then ask them why in the us 1830 census mass still had slaves listed as living in the state.
You had better learn to rein in your temper. There is no excuse for it. I would not suggest you test the patience of the moderators.