Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)

19. Same supreme Court that justified Dred Scott

Reply to mzmolly (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:22 PM

Jan 2013

1. Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.
2. The Property Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.
3. Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.

Which gave that wonderful rulings

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery:Southern Slave patrols [View all] Ichingcarpenter Jan 2013 OP

Sheesh - how many times is this going to be posted? SO WHAT!? jmg257 Jan 2013 #1

Thank you. Vattel Jan 2013 #6

Your Nation's History is Nonsense? Ichingcarpenter Jan 2013 #8

ditto... noiretextatique Jan 2013 #10

The suggestion that the rationale for the second amendment Vattel Jan 2013 #18

You can't handle the tuth. baldguy Jan 2013 #29

Yes, it doesn't really matter why it was ratified in the first place. nt Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #26

K&R&bookmarked -- I can't believe this doesn't have more recs yet. nt eppur_se_muova Jan 2013 #2

K and R for the gungeon Kingofalldems Jan 2013 #3

And the First Amendment guaranteed pro-slavery screeds could be published, so... nt Romulox Jan 2013 #4

And this was used as legalized violence Ichingcarpenter Jan 2013 #7

Our country was FOUNDED on a violent revolution. So yes, the First Amendment is included Romulox Jan 2013 #9

I can't help but notice that only one side is armed. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #14

Interesting piece, thanks for posting it. freshwest Jan 2013 #5

Thank you for this. thucythucy Jan 2013 #11

It certainly explains a lot of things AnnieBW Jan 2013 #12

If millions of slaves had been armed, would they have remained slaves? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #13

There were some good points here, BUT...... AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Jan 2013 #21

Only to protect slavery? No one is saying that RobertEarl Jan 2013 #24

I missed that part...how did 'state' vs 'country' make a diff for what jmg257 Jan 2013 #25

It was part of the 13 colony morph into the US RobertEarl Jan 2013 #28

..... AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #31

The words "free state" actually meant free country - in context. mzmolly Jan 2013 #16

Same supreme Court that justified Dred Scott Ichingcarpenter Jan 2013 #19

Sad mzmolly Jan 2013 #22

Indeed, the Supreme Court has never been immune from corrupt partisanism. AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #32

I had never heard this before, but I'm not about to write it off completely like some people... joeybee12 Jan 2013 #17

Thom Hartmann reported on this a few weeks ago. Ilsa Jan 2013 #20

Thanks...I assumed the link was to Thom Hartmann... joeybee12 Jan 2013 #23

Today, ask yourself... backscatter712 Jan 2013 #27

+100 lunasun Jan 2013 #30

So many historical errors. legaleagle_45 Jan 2013 #33

Damned lies. At some point gross inaccuracies become lies. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #34