5 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2025
    1. The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens.

      Taney points to old state laws that treated Black people unfairly and says this proves they were never meant to be citizens. He’s using discrimination as evidence. I disagree because laws that were unjust shouldn’t be used to defend injustice. They show racism, not truth.

    2. In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

      Taney claims that since enslaved Africans weren’t considered “the people” back then, they can’t be citizens now. He’s using historical exclusion as proof. I strongly disagree because “all men are created equal” should apply to everyone. Just because people were wrong in the past doesn’t mean we should keep those ideas alive.

    3. It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

      Taney looks back to colonial times to decide who counts as a citizen. He uses old laws and traditions to prove his point, which is exactly how originalists think. I disagree because those old systems supported slavery. Using them as a guide for freedom is unfair and outdated.

    4. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

      Here, Taney says judges have to follow what the Constitution meant when it was first written. He doesn’t believe it should change with time or new ideas. I disagree because that way of thinking keeps the country stuck in the past. The Constitution should grow with society and reflect fairness for everyone.

    5. The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.

      Taney is asking if Black people can ever be part of the “political community” that the founders created. He basically says that since the people who wrote the Constitution didn’t see them as citizens, they still aren’t. I disagree because Taney uses racist beliefs from the 1700s to decide what’s right now. The founders’ views shouldn’t stop people from being treated equally today.