and law of the state that the escaped slave currently resides in.
Barren v. Baltimore is patently up there as one of the singularly most retarded rulings the supreme court has ever made, next.
That isn't the justification of the Dredd Scott decision. The justification of the Dredd Scott decision was to resolve the arguments around the existence of slaver (each of which was a failure).
Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property. was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged To protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words--too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Confess a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights.
Maybe stop being retarded against someone who actually reads supreme court rulings like an autistic magnet.
The United States is founded on Liberal Philosophy. The relevant point of which is that a man owns himself and endowed by God with inalienable rights. The very nature of a person being property of someone else is in contradiction to Liberalism. It does not fit even with public use, because a person is not public use. A person is not the private property of another, nor the public property of the state.
And the constitution is the document by which we are governed, which is not an idealistic item.
If we cared about Amendment 5, then the Fugitive Slave law would have to be revoked, since I don't see why a person's private property (food, shelter, or labor) can be deprived of him by deputized agents of the state, against his consent, and against the laws of the state he resides in. Again, patently unconstitutional.
Slaves were legally property and not citizens, are you unable to read or are you just the average mouthbreather?
Barren v. Baltimore is patently up there as one of the singularly most retarded rulings the supreme court has ever made, next.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford
Maybe stop being retarded against someone who actually reads supreme court rulings like an autistic magnet.
And the constitution is the document by which we are governed, which is not an idealistic item.
Slaves were legally property and not citizens, are you unable to read or are you just the average mouthbreather?