I have to admit to a bit of curiosity about this since it is one of the Supreme Court's most infamous cases!
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. This was despite whether or not the descendants were slaves. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process.
In one of the weirdest aspects of the Second Amendment debate, it has become acceptable to quote Dred Scott as a legitimate constitutional authority. This is one of the most thoroughly discredited cases in Supreme Court history, there is a tie between this case and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), for most disreputable Supreme Court Case. The District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) decision comes in there for sheer poor practise as does Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
What could such a case possibly have to do with the 2nd Amendment? Says Laci:
Justice Taney did make a brief reference to the right to travel armed, but he never actually discusses the meaning of the Second Amendment. How remarks made by a judge in the most universally reviled decision in American history could provide a solid foundation to over-turn seventy years of precedent on the meaning of the Second Amendment is truly baffling.
What do you think? Is Laci barking up the wrong tree? Or is there something to these remarks that makes sense?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.