7 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
    Scott v. Sandford
    7
    1. TenachiJ 13 Oct 2025
      No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted.

      Taney is saying the Constitution should always be read the same way it was when it was first written no matter how society changes this is pure originalism. I disagree because if we followed this logic blindly equality and progress would've never happened.

    2. TenachiJ 13 Oct 2025
      the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void;

      Here he's attacking the Missouri Compromise through originalist property arguments. He's prioritizing what the framers thought about property over evolving ideas about justice. I disagree because that law was meant to limit slavery's spread not harm anyone's real rights.

    3. TenachiJ 13 Oct 2025
      at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

      Taney uses the historical context of the 1770s to argue that Black people were never part of the political community. It's another way he locks the meaning of the constitution in the past. I disagree because laws should reflect growth not just the history.

    4. TenachiJ 13 Oct 2025
      an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.

      He's framing slavery as a property issue, using the original understanding of the Fifth Amendment to defend it. That's how he tries to strike down anti slavery laws. I disagree because this treats human beings as objects instead of recognizing their rights.

    5. TenachiJ 13 Oct 2025
      The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.

      Taney argues that citizenship only applied to White people because that's how he claims that framers saw it. It's a textbook originalist move taking their intent as absolute. I disagree because it purposely shuts out anyone who didn't fit their narrow view.

    6. TenachiJ 13 Oct 2025
      it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration;

      Taney is basically saying that when the Constitution was written, Black people weren't meant to be part of the people. He's leaning on what he thinks the framers originally meant. I find this reasoning outdated because it freezes the law in a time when equality wasn't valued.

    7. TenachiJ 13 Oct 2025
      they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect;

      This line shows Taney using originalist reasoning to deny any legal rights to Black people. It reflects how he interpreted the farmers views to support racism. I strongly disagree because it upholds injustice instead of evolving with society.

    Visit annotations in context

    Annotators

    URL

    law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393