Sentences with phrase «in dred»

Lincoln's oath of office was administered by of all people Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who authored the majority opinion in Dred Scott.

I am convinced that it is because Vallas operates on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case: «Black people have no rights that Whites are bound to respect.»

In Dred Scott v. Sandford Chief Justice Taney seemed to hand supporters of slavery a total victory, but it led to their ultimate defeat.

The city of Baltimore took down monuments to Lee, Jackson and pre-Civil War Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who wrote the majority decision in the Dred Scott Case, ruling that the descendants of slaves were not US citizens.

Some critics at the time charged Lincoln with violating rights of private property and of thus contradicting the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott.

None of what Lincoln achieved — the eventual abolition of slavery, the preservation of the Union — would have happened had Lincoln not thought himself constitutionally authorizedto resist the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott; constitutionally obligated, by his oath, to resist secession; and constitutionally empowered, as commander in chief, to fight the enemy with the full powers at his disposal, which included military force, blockade, suspension of habeas corpus, arrest and detention, seizure of enemy property, and emancipation of Southern slaves.

The final word on slavery and secession did not come from the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

During the nineteenth century, the Court often made up its own Constitution, most notoriously in the 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

This happened, for example, when the Supreme Court of the United States, in a ruling that helped to precipitate the Civil War, held in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were noncitizens — and, for all practical purposes, nonpersons — possessed of no rights that white people must respect.

If we like what the Justices did in Brown v. Board, let us not forget what they did in Dred Scott.

Our archonocracy has arisen... not from the intent of the Framers but from the claim of the Court, first enunciated and implemented in Dred Scott, that it has the duty (hence power) to void Federal law it deems unconstitutional.

I think the Supreme Court got it wrong in 1857 in Dred Scott v. Sandford, when it held that an African - American whose ancestors had been brought to the U.S. as slaves could not be a citizen and thus had no legal standing.

Congress has not defied the Supreme Court, as it ultimately did in Dred Scott.

This happened, for example, when the Supreme Court of the United States, in a ruling that helped to precipitate the Civil War, held in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were noncitizens» and, for all practical purposes, nonpersons» possessed of no rights that white people must respect.

Defenders of the Supreme Court's infamous pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, for example, advanced precisely this view of judicial power.

Having in mind the shameful jurisprudence inaugurated by the Court in Dred Scott in the mid-nineteenth century, Lochner v. New York in the early twentieth, and Roe v. Wade and numerous other partisan decisions in our own time, one might say: «I'm sorry, but that is, to say the least, not persuasive.»

Lincoln really was guided by his view of what the Constitution required of him: to fight secession; flout the Supreme Court's fabrications in Dred Scott; and in these great causes deploy all his lawful powers as commander - in - chief — including that «seizure» of enemy «property» called the Emancipation Proclamation.

Not exact matches

Were a person to have violated a court order directing the return of a runaway slave when Dred Scott was the law, would a genuinely held belief that a slave was a human person and not an article of property be a matter the Court could not consider in deciding whether that person was guilty of a criminal contempt charge?

Anyone remember Dred Scott... having the Court legislate hasn't worked well in the past, and now we do repeat it.

The notorious Dred Scott decision (1837) asserted that because slaves were their masters» property Congress could not ban slavery anywhere in the United States — a holding that ignored the Framers» compromise of tolerating slavery temporarily but allowing eventual measures against it.

(Roe's theory of «substantive due process,» which was also the basis for Dred Scoff and Lochner, has always landed the court in trouble, because it strikes down properly enacted laws that interfere with whatever the justices conclude is an important «liberty»)

Pretty strong language, but no stronger than the metaphor Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation used, in an op - ed article in The Washington Times, to «describe a bill designed to prevent corporations from rechartering abroad for tax purposes: Mitchell described this legislation as the «Dred Scott tax bill,» referring to the infamous 1857 Supreme Court ruling that required free states to return escaped slaves.

In thinking about them, we should bear in mind that Lincoln refused to accept the ruling of the Dred Scott Court that blacks — even free blacks — could not be citizenIn thinking about them, we should bear in mind that Lincoln refused to accept the ruling of the Dred Scott Court that blacks — even free blacks — could not be citizenin mind that Lincoln refused to accept the ruling of the Dred Scott Court that blacks — even free blacks — could not be citizens.

Had the matter not finally been settled by the Civil War and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, this pressure might well have resulted in a gradual dismantling of Dred Scott.

Hey dred — Do you realise that Belfast — in Northern Ireland is built on seven hills?

Roe and the decisions reaffirming it are equal in their audacity and abuse of judicial office to Dred Scott v. Sandford.

As many others have done, the religious leaders point to the ominous parallels with the infamous Dred Scott decision about slavery in 1857.

He was given the presidency in a Supreme Court decision that rivaled Dred Scott for stupidity.

Justice Antonin Scalia declares in Stenberg v. Carhart that he is «optimistic enough to believe» that the decision constitutionally protecting partial «birth abortion will «one day... be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court's jurisprudence beside Korematsu [validating internment of Japanese «Americans during World War II] and Dred Scott [holding white supremacy and racial slavery as fundamental tenets of American constitutionalism].»

The Justice labored mightily only to produce an intellectual and moral embarrassment, one that will shadow him forever in much the same way and for much the same reason that Dred Scott haunts the reputation of Roger Taney.

Sandford (whose name was actually Sanford), acting on behalf of his sister who was Dred Scott's owner, injected into the litigation the question whether any black person, free or slave, could be a citizen of the United States, and he directly challenged the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which forbade slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of latitude 36 ° 30».

With the specter of civil war looming, the new President, who had denounced the Dred Scott decision repeatedly in his senatorial campaign against Douglas in 1858 as well as in the presidential campaign, turned attention to it in his remarks to the nation.

'» To Lincoln Dred Scott was an abomination, but for reasons of principle going even beyond those set forth by the dissenting Justices in the case.

In office, Lincoln gave effect to his position against judicial supremacy by consistently refusing to treat the Dred Scott decision as creating a rule of law binding on the executive branch.

Whatever Marbury was supposed to mean about the scope of the power of judicial review, it is a notable fact that the Court declined to exercise that power to declare another act of Congress to be unconstitutional until 1857, when it ruled in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

McPherson points out that «so thoroughly did the Dred Scott decision pervade and structure the Lincoln - Douglas debates [in 1858] that in one of those debates a Douglas supporter shouted from the audience to Lincoln: «Give us something besides Dred Scott.»

Does the Supreme Court's ruling striking down state prohibitions of abortion in the 1973 cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton belong on the plus side of the Court's ledger with Brown v. Board or on the minus side with Dred Scott?

His mature and most profound reflections on the scope of judicial power and the role of the judiciary in the American constitutional system came in relation to the debate over Dred Scott.

In other words, most today hold the Stephen Douglas view in which Dred Scott was accepteIn other words, most today hold the Stephen Douglas view in which Dred Scott was acceptein which Dred Scott was accepted.

It was the Dred Scott case that President Abraham Lincoln had in mind when he said in his First Inaugural Address:

Plessy v. Ferguson, the case where the Court in 1896 embraced segregation as constitutional, was the ugly, illegitimate stepchild of Dred Scott in 1857.

From his stance toward Dred Scott, one can speculate that Lincoln likely would have championed popular resistance to Plessy, in order to overturn it as a precedent.

Justice Scalia was quite right to analogize the Supreme Court's Dred Scott and Casey decisions («Abortion and a Nation at War,» October), in that the question in each case was not resolved by the decision.

The most important argument used by Chief Justice Roger Taney in denying Dred Scott his freedom was a due process one.

In 1857, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was strengthened by a Supreme Court ruling that Dred Scot, a slave bought in the South and taken to the North were still a slave, who had to be returned to his masteIn 1857, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was strengthened by a Supreme Court ruling that Dred Scot, a slave bought in the South and taken to the North were still a slave, who had to be returned to his mastein the South and taken to the North were still a slave, who had to be returned to his master.

«In an affront to every sensible Monroe County voter, Louise compared her campaign to the plight of former slave Dred Scott and the millions of African - Americans who suffered under the scourge of slavery,» said Noah Lebowitz.

This decision ranks with Dred Scott, Citizens United and Bush v Gore among the most morally bankrupt and non-constitutionally based political decisions in the courts history.»

He actively lobbied the Supreme Ct. to decide the Dred Scott v. Sandford suit that would maintain the status of slaves; and even allow slavery in new territories.

In Maryland, workers began the removal of a statue honoring Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who presided over the Dred Scott decision.

In the infamous Dred Scott case, the US Supreme Court decided that African Americans were not of America, and they had no rights that «a white man was bound to respect.»