Big Dog
Active Member
In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was not a citizen and that he was not entitled to sue in court. Basically they screwed the guy and he remained a slave until his emancipation was bought.
In any event, here is a paragraph from the ruling:
It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
I never see this cited when the discussion over the 2A take place. This 1857 ruling clearly sets a precedence, or as libs like to drone on with regard to Roe, stare decisis. Why is this not used in arguments to the Court?
The Dred Scott ruling was terrible but the reasons given are not incorrect. A free person is entitled to do all of this...
In any event, here is a paragraph from the ruling:
It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
I never see this cited when the discussion over the 2A take place. This 1857 ruling clearly sets a precedence, or as libs like to drone on with regard to Roe, stare decisis. Why is this not used in arguments to the Court?
The Dred Scott ruling was terrible but the reasons given are not incorrect. A free person is entitled to do all of this...