To: STONEWALLS
that's cause Taney wrote Dred Scott, a decision based on law but uber un-PC these daysTwo things. One, please refer me to the law on which it was based, and then please tell me whether or not you agree with the Scott decision.
Thanx.
154 posted on
11/07/2003 2:01:20 PM PST by
rdb3
(We're all gonna go, but I hate to go fast. Then again, it won't be fun to stick around and go last.)
To: rdb3; WhiskeyPapa; shuckmaster; stainlessbanner; Constitution Day; stand watie; billbears; ...
"Two things. One, please refer me to the law on which it was based, and then please tell me whether or not you agree with the Scott decision."
1. the Court ruled Scott didn't have "standing" to sue.
2. I agree that he didn't have standing to sue but that he also deserved manumission and should have received it earlier than he did.
To: rdb3
"... please refer me to the law on which [the Dred Scott decision] was based ..." Have you actually read the decision?
All the prior case law is cited right there in it.
526 posted on
11/16/2003 12:59:25 PM PST by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson