Time: Tue Nov 12 00:28:29 1996 To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Dred Scott Cc: Bcc: >In reply to: > >> >Let me simplify: The Supreme Court of the United States in Dred Scott is >> >one case that has never been overturned ... " > >-----/// This is a correct statement. Scott v. Sanford was not >overturned. However, if the the 14th Amendment is the law of the >land, then the case is moot. That's a big IF, particularly when you have cases like Dyett v. Turner and State v. Phillips available to demolish the 14th utterly, totally, and completely. What else can I say? See Full Faith and Credit Clause. /s/ Paul Mitchell Here is the unedited >quote from "The Constitution of the United States of America", >prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress >and published by the U.S. Government Printing Office: > > "A question much mooted before the Civil War was whether the >term could be held to include free Negroes. In the Dred Scott case, >the Court answered in the negative. 'Citizens of each State,' Chief >Justice Taney argued, meant citizens of the United States as >understood at the time the Constitution was adopted, and Negroes were >not regarded as capable of citizenship. The only category of >national citizenship added under the Constitution comprised aliens, >naturalized in accordance with acts of Congress. In dissent, >Justice Curtis not only denied the Chief Justice's assertion that >there were no Negro citizens of States in 1789, but further argued >that while Congress alone could determine what classes of aliens >should be naturalized, the several States retained the right to >extend citizenship to classes of persons born within their borders >who had not previously enjoyed citizenship and that one upon whom >state citizenship was thus conferred became a citizen of the State in >the full sense of the Constitution. So far as persons born in the >United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are concerned, >the question was put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment" > > As you can see from the above, the statement below is in >substance also true: > >> It is My understanding that US v. Scott was overturned >> by the Maine Supreme Court. Anyone else heard of this? >> It will take a couple of days for Me to find the specific >> source or cite, sorry for not having it readily available. > >-----/// Although no state supreme court can overturn a >federal supreme court decision, the fact that a State can grant >rights not granted by the Constitution can have that effect. >However, it is not the courts of the State which do it, it is the >legislature. The courts can only interpret what the legislature has >done. And although many can argue that courts make law all the time, >the fact remains that if the legislature doesn't like the law the >courts make, they are free to pass laws which make the court rulings >moot. This, of course, is an oversimplification. But if you believe >that all power resides in The People, then The People have the power >to exercise their will, even to the point of amending the Constitution >or, God forbid, tossing it out completely. > >pap >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"If a nation expects to be ignorant >and free, in a state of civilization, >it expects what never was and never >will be." > ... Thomas Jefferson > Letter to Charles Yancy > January 6, 1816 >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail