8mm
Posted on 03/07/2007 3:41:15 PM PST by wagglebee
ST. LOUIS, March 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In March 1856, a black slave named Dred Scott was judged by the US Supreme Court to be less than a person. Today his great, great granddaughter, Lynne Jackson, is pointing to the case as a beacon of hope that full human rights will be extended to all citizens, regardless of their age, size or degree of dependency.
The March 6, 1857 Dred Scott decision ruled that any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the U.S. Constitution. Blacks, the ruling said, were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." The decision was overturned by the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery less than ten years later in 1865.
Speaking on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Dred Scott decision, Jackson told The Pathway, the journal of the Missouri Baptist Convention, that she had herself witnessed an abortion.
Jackson, who is a civil rights activist, described an abortion she had seen, saying, "You see this beautiful form of a darling baby just floating around… Eventually, you really can't see the arms and legs anymore, of course, because it's being pulled apart in that particular procedure. So now you're just looking at stuff floating, where a minute ago you were looking at a baby."
"And it is a baby, and life does begin at conception," Jackson added.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told the Baptist Press that pro-life advocates should take heart and keep in mind that although in 1856, "the pro-slavery forces in America were impregnable…pro-freedom forces were utterly triumphant less than a decade later."
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
It was also handed down two days after a presidential inauguration.
After Hillary's speech ..... how does she now double back on the "pro-choice" crowd??
This is great news. Little by little, bit by bit.
I would say that the most infamous SCOTUS decisions in order are, Roe v. Wade, Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. However, I think ultimately the most harmful one is the first major decision, Marbury v. Madison, because it was the court adjudicating itself unconstitutional powers in this case that resulted in the other travesties.
Oh boy, liberals are NOT going to know how to respond to this. Heehee.
You may want to check out Sparf vs US as another extremely damaging court case.
Atta girl, Lynne!
EXACTLY!
Martin Luther King's niece is also a very vocal opponent of abortion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=alvedaking
so appropriate....
It's an ocean of support against the abortion movement ... only there's no winds to push the waters to show the vastness of the current.
OMG, some things shock you to read even though you knew about it before. It's one of those things that never loses that "punch in the gut" effect.
Providence!
God love her for speaking out about something so incredibly obscene. Politics aside, it was the right thing to do.
Bush tortutred this woman and implanted some type of right-wing homing device in her.
LOL! It wouldn't surprise me if a liberal said that. ;-)
Usually the pro-choice feminazis say that these African Americans that tie it to slavery or feminists for life are confused because in their minds pregnancy is a form of slavery. They believe it is comparable to slavery if a woman can't control who is in her uterus. To me the argument is ridiculous.
I don't understand. Was she watching an ultra-sound remote camera?
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Without judicial review, how would we determine which laws were unconstitutional? The founding fathers obviously placed a different emphasis on amendment vs. law, considering that they required different mechanisms to enact each, unlike the more flexible system of the United Kingdom.
Also, judicial review predates Marbury vs. Madison in Edward Cokes 1610 opinion on Dr. Bonham's case.
From federalist no. 78:
"It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts"
So, are you still in favor of courts using foreign law in their rulings?
Are you referring to not informing juries of jury nullification rights? The courts are going a lot farther than that now, and actually jailing people for contempt if they disregard judicial instructions.
Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Urges Americans to Vote Pro-Life
An Election Message from Dr. Alveda King October 2006
By Dr. Alveda King
"Vote as if your life depends upon it. Someone's life does! Be encouraged that you are not alone in your desire to see an end to the senseless violence against the most helpless of our brothers and sisters. Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us to care for the least of these. We can demonstrate our compassion by voting for pro-life candidates in the upcoming elections.
"My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said: 'Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.'
"We must vote for life this year, and every year, because it is the right thing to do.
"Please, I urge you, do[n't] be distracted by political rhetoric. The most pressing civil rights issue of this season is the protection of the lives of the pre-born.
"Your vote counts. Please cast it, for life!"
That's exactly what I'm talking about among the multitude of other rights few jurors will ever know they have.
US law is founded on English law, and the law of the Colonies before the passage of the Constitution. Should they have thrown all of that out and started from scratch as soon as they finished writing the Constitution? The laws of the day were perfectly serviceable, and if not were replaced by new legislation. A better question would be about the impact of common law principles on legal precedent, and whether common law as opposed to statutory law should have been ignored by the American judiciary.
"Oh boy, liberals are NOT going to know how to respond to this. Heehee."
Unfortunately, they will deal with it by making sure it gets no coverage at all in the Mainstream Media. The public at large will never know this. No one will be able to hold it up to Rudy G. (or Hellary, or Hussein Obama, or...) and challenge him on it.
Thanks for the ping. Bump for later reading.
More by the 14th Amendment. Professor Amos argued with great force that the Terri Schiavo affair nullified the protections of the 14th Amendment and put us right back to Dred Scott. Terri was treated like chattel property and denied all of her basic rights, just as Dred Scott was in the 1850s. The judiciary deprived her of her property (even though it was held in trust for her), her liberty and her life.
Sorry, I didn't answer your question. I'm in favor of using all of our historical legislation, including inherited English legislation where it has not been superseded. If the US legislature wants to pass a bill superseding all inherited English law, I'm all for that too (And they may have more recently than the revolutionary era, I'm not a scholar of legal history). Generally I feel that laws passed should all have sunset provisions, but legal theorists were not that sophisticated way back when. Also, legal enforcement was much more arbitrary.
bump
What an wonderful story. And how ironic, indeed.
Ditto. Bump. Ping
How wonderful that the great, great granddaughter of Dred Scott, Lynne Jackson, is speaking out for life! Thanks for posting this.
Pro-Life bump
"By Dr. Alveda King
"Vote as if your life depends upon it. Someone's life does!""
Excellent advice!! That's my number one priority when voting. Are they steadfastly opposed to abortion? It's not a matter of politics but rather a matter of a man's character.
You may also want to check out
Everson vs. Board of education Feb 10, 1947 Creating the "Establishment Clause" which has created most of these awful firestorms America is dealing with today.
IMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.