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.
Just like everyone else that existed before the new collective rights theory became popular, the justice merely reiterated what everyone already knew and that was all of the Bill Of Rights were meant as individual rights.
ReplyDeleteMikeB you are faaaarrr too PC. BUt, I guess all the comments will come here and not at my post.
ReplyDeleteMikeB you are faaaarrr too PC. BUt, I guess all the comments will come here and not at my post.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that? Afraid to defend your bigoted position on your own blog?
Sorry MikeB, but after 5 minutes at her site I see no reason to have any respect for Laci.
ReplyDeleteShe is a vile, disgusting, despicable creature. That's about as nicely as I can put it.
With the kind of vile crap she puts up on her blog it's no wonder she won't allow comments. I wouldn't either if I wrote like that.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/quotes-of-day-bigotry-edition.html
I personally don't care to deal with people who don't bother learning about what they talk about before making opinions.
ReplyDeleteIn short, Dred Scott was found not to be a person since he was a slave: he was property. That mean he didn't have any rights: personal, private, public or whatever.
Does that make sense to you?
FWM, Yeah, it was in a less enlightened time when white men were really white men and ...
It's too politically incorrect to quote the rest of what I said on my site.
You may wish to READ my post before making comments. I don't bother with people who can't make cogent comments.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, Taney's comment about carrying arms can be read as "watch out if the n----rs had guns" and is found in what is called the "parade of horribles" portion of the decision.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mike W.
ReplyDeleteI can tell that You have had your position thoroughly trashed.
Property does not have rights of any kind. Dred Scott was property since he was a slave.
I think I made my point for how repugnant the Dred Scott decisions is held by those who have read it and understood it.
Mike W. Can I assume that anothergunblog.blogspot.com is your blog?
ReplyDeleteYou have a place to voice your opinions.
I don't see why I need to allow your opinions on my page.
BTW, I am not sure what point you are making in the post you cite, but if you find it bigotry.
Well, that's your opinion.
Property does not have rights of any kind. Dred Scott was property since he was a slave.
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what the holding was in Scott and I fully agree with you that it was a despicable decision.
My point was that the Court listed the rights Scott would have enjoyed as an American citizen had he been considered a free man rather than property.
They included in that list of rights the right to keep & bear arms unconnected with militia service.
Yes, it was a racist, bigoted decision. That said, the fact that they held he didn't have those rights doesn't change the nature of the rights as listed, that they were rights of INDIVIDUALS "to keep & carry arms wherever they went."
Mike W., I've always had difficulty understanding your use of the word "bigotry" in reference to my disagreeing with you on gun issues. I think it's another of the many spinning, exaggerating little tricks you use rather than argue the issues.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is what Laci picked up on too. "BTW, I am not sure what point you are making in the post you cite, but if you find it bigotry.
Well, that's your opinion."
Dred Scott says nothing about the nature of the right: only that property does not have rights.
ReplyDeleteThe section you mention is called the "parade of horribles" as to the feared results of granting Mr. Scott's petition. Not a good section to quote.
It's quite obvious that you have no idea what that meant and what a poor choice it was to use that section.
BTW, thanks for the compliment! Too bad you don't read my blog.
What do you think? Is Laci barking up the wrong tree? Or is there something to these remarks that makes sense?
ReplyDeleteDred Scott is quoted not for the quality the decision, which everyone agrees was dreadful and wrong, but to establish what the public meaning was of the Second Amendment before the establishment of the Second Amendment. Part of establishing what the public understanding was of the right is in showing what various figured believed it meant, and something from a Supreme Court case is compelling in that regard. Citing that is in no, way, shape or form an endorsement of the result in Dred Scott.
I would also point out that as we go for incorporation, another case in which we'll be looking at is Cruikshank, which is another despicable decision that gutted the privileges and immunities clause which was intended to protect the civil rights of freed blacks after the civil war.
The Courts have an opportunity to overturn that decision with McDonald v. City of Chicago. Let's hope they do. I should note that Scott was never formally overturned by the Supreme Court, but was largely made invalid by constitutional amendment. Let's hope it doesn't take that to get rid of Cruikshank.
Mike W., I've always had difficulty understanding your use of the word "bigotry" in reference to my disagreeing with you on gun issues.
ReplyDeleteDefined as " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" It is a greatly misused word, actually, but it's greatly misused by a great many people, not just Second Amendment activists. But often times it's properly used, and people think it's improper because they think it has something to do with racism, which is not true. It may have that connotation today, but it's not the formal definition of the word.
"Dred Scott says nothing about the nature of the right"
ReplyDeleteIt specifically lays out which rights would have been protected if Scott were a citizen.
Included is the right of individual citizens to "keep & bear arms wherever they went."
Ignoring plain text that clearly shows that the right was understood to be individual rather than collective doesn't make those words disappear.
BTW - I thought of other words for what I quoted from you, but bigotry was most appropriate.
MikeB - I didn't call her a bigot for disagreeing with me, I called her a bigot based on things said in her own posts.
Go read what she wrote MikeB, do you think I'm wrong to call her out and ridicule her for it?
It's disgusting and disrespectful. No way around that.
Sebastian, Please don't stop there. Is Mike W. using the word correctly or not when he uses it to describe me?
ReplyDeleteI find you frustrating, because it's difficult for me to decrypt your way of thinking, but I don't find you bigoted.
ReplyDeleteperson obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't referring to you MikeB, I was referring specifically to Laci's comments as I quoted in my blog post.
I'd say expressing joy at the death of 2 people specifically because they belong to a group you have extreme prejudice against certainly qualifies as bigotry, among other things.
You don't see me or any of the pro-gunners here saying we hope you die because you advocate infringing upon our rights.
Laci says she hoped Hain was killed with her own gun so the tragedy could be exploited (by Laci and her ilk)
Laci claims it'd be a "better world" if us gun owners all shot ourselves. That we should all die so that she can achieve the glorious gun control paradise she wants.
If that's the kind of company you want to keep that's OK MikeB, but someone that vile deserves to be ridiculed for her statements.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI have not had a chance to respond to your last question to me from a previous post. I will when time permits.
On a side note, bigot may be technically correct when MikeW describes you. I think the definition is too narrow to describe you. In a broad sense, I would describe you as a secular statist.
VOR, I'll have to look up that term, "secular statist." I doesn't sound as bad a bigot though.
ReplyDeleteSebastian, thanks for what you said.
Mike W.,I realize in these exchanges you've been referring to Laci, but let's not forget you've called me a bigot many a time.
As far as Laci's blog, I agree it's over the top, especially when you take the worst quotes out of context. It reminds me of Phuckpolitics. Have you seen his site? As you know I don't go in for that style myself, but I say live and let live about what people do on their own blogs. I've noticed that both Laci and Phuckpolitics tone it down a good bit over here, which I appreciate.
Go to my post MikeB - I link to each quote. They're not taken out of context one bit.
ReplyDeleteLaci's comments are vile, despicable, and utterly disrespectful. Period. The only reason you're defending her is because she's an anti-gunner.
MikeB. I try to respect your board. As you point out, I do tone down quite a bit.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'll have to forget about ever being a judge!
Anyway, In short, using the dicta from a case which is used as an example of poor judicial decision making does not make a point.
I've added material to say that I a much less polite way in the post
As for my comment about hoping you all shoot yourselves. Well, I guess that goes toward the calling people bigots.
If you aren't even going to try to see my point of view, then we aren't going to make any progress.
And I guess, quite frankly, that's the point of MikeB post if you are so despirate to make a point that you have to use incredibly faulty logic to butress your argument, then you are really not helping the issue.
Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I am open to argument, but I have yet to see anything the "pro-gun" side has to say that is really cogent or persuasive. As for my "hatred" toward them:
Isn't that something like being a self-loathing Jew if you're Jewish and say you don't support Israel? I guess logic that makes me a self-loathing gun owner.
I don't loath gun owners, just idiots who aren't able to comprehend logic, make idiotic comments, have caused gun laws to become more lax, and are just messing things up for the rest of us.
(see I toned that down)
"I don't loath gun owners, just idiots who aren't able to comprehend logic, make idiotic comments, have caused gun laws to become more lax.
ReplyDeleteYup, and as you said, gun owners who won't go along with your "progressive" gun control ideas should be killed off for having the temerity to oppose you.
You didn't just let that slip once, it's a position you've taken with regularity on your blog, even going so far as to say on numerous occasions that YOU would love to be the one to "pop a cap in their sorry moronic arses" (your words not mine)
As Saysuncle would say, Why are anti-gunners so violent?
Also Laci, a "concealed weapons badge" is a TERRIBLE IDEA. I don't know a single person who would ever carry one. Your permit is a legally recognized document, a badge is just some useless piece of plastic you bought over the internet.
ReplyDeleteThere's not a single state that issues any such badge to a person when they get their permit, so why would anyone go and buy a "CCW badge?"
In fact, fake badges open you up to legal issues for impersonating an LEO, depending upon your state statutes.
Isn't a better way of defining bigot as someone who obstinately holds an opinion and refuses to see the other's view point?
ReplyDeleteWhile, in my rude way, I examine the argument presented and found it seriously lacking. I give my reasons for this.
So, I am open to other's viewpoints and try to understand them.
On the other hand, I see a lot of people trying to foist their opinions on others and not trying to understand the other's point of view.
I doubt that post will ever be quoted in any scholarly journals!
ReplyDelete"I've noticed that both Laci and Phuckpolitics tone it down a good bit over here, which I appreciate."
ReplyDeleteI read your blog every day MikeB.
I refuse to read blogs that don't allow comments.
We may disagree on a whole host of subjects, but the fact that you allow comments AND respond to issues raised in those comments grants you a certain amount of respect in my eyes.
You won't ever convert me into an anti and I most likely will never convert you into a staunch 2A defender.
My purpose here is to challenge your perceptions and all the propaganda that shape your views.
Refute me if you can; I welcome it.
You have provided a forum for open debate, wish I value.
Don't change unless your soul compels you too. But be open to new ideas, logic and true "common sense."
Thanks kaveman.
ReplyDeleteWhile, in my rude way, I examine the argument presented and found it seriously lacking. I give my reasons for this.
ReplyDeleteSo wishing death upon pro-gun folks in a number of different posts is "examining the argument presented?"
Cheering with joy at the death of people simply because they're gun owners and fight gun control is flat out sick and frankly makes me question your mental stability.
While I would never advocate further gun control laws I really do think it's best for some folks not to exercise that right. Based on your statements you certainly fall into that group.
Repeatedly stating your desire to murder pro-gun folks simply for being pro-gun is beyond sick.
So, I am open to other's viewpoints and try to understand them.
ReplyDeleteRight, which is why you resort to namecalling as say we should all die. Sure sounds like someone who's tolerant and openminded to me!
And then of course there's the whole "no comments" thing on your blog, not even contact info.
Yup, you're "open to other's viewpoints" by not allowing other's viewpoints on your blog. Excellent logic Laci!
Mike W., You asked how can I align myself with someone like Laci. Part of it is I'm not such a literalist as you are. When I read all those excessive remarks you keep referring to, I don't take them literally. And I don't think they were meant literally. They're hyperbole. What they mean to me is Laci doesn't like you guys, not that he wants to kill anyone literally. That's the way I take it anyway.
ReplyDeleteHere's another example of your being a literalist and my not and that causing confusion. You asked about this too. I say prison guards and parole officers are pseudo-cops. That's my attitude towards them, it's my opinion. You showed me that in PA that is "literally" wrong. I don't care if the law in PA says they're equal to real cops or whatever, to me they're a good step lower, and as an aside, I'll bet the real cops agree. Ask you relatives.
Where we got in trouble, though, is your calling what I said a "lie." I don't think that's fair. The worst you could accuse me of is being wrong, and even that I'd argue. But you can't call that lying.
If you say they are not cops and I show you documented evidence that they are cops under the law then you are LYING.
ReplyDeleteYes, your statement is based on your opinion, but it is also factually untrue.
Even if you're right about Laci, that she's just joking, does that excuse her statements at all?
If you continually made statements about raping little girls I'd call you a vile, despicable human being whether you were joking or not.
Also, there's nothing in any of Laci's posts that infers she's joking.
If she said the same exact things about Jews that she has about gun owners I'd call her a bigoted anti-semite, and her own words would back up my claim.
After linking to Laci's post yesterday on Dred Scott, I took a look at the rest of the posts since that one, and think it would best be described as a long rant, largely lacking in any deliberative or intellectual quality. I would therefore conclude that any further engagement with Laci is a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteI don't demand people agree with me. There are plenty of arguments you can make for restrictive gun laws, and I've heard them all by this point, but I don't have time for someone who's idea of an argument is flinging invectives at their opponents. That's not someone interested in debate. That's an angry person venting.
Interesting how my comment didn't get approved.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that MikeB!
I know for a fact that it didn't violate your requirements for commenting...NOT ONE violation.
Is this the ethical behavior you claim to live?