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