If there is one thing the SCOTUS has taught me, it's to never look beyond the current decision. I cheer that one but I may very well curse the next one. Great piece, thank you.

Sidetracking the train of thought: I got irritated at a clip of Newt Gingrich on Face the Nation yesterday spreading crap about the ramifications of the decision, saying it was the worst since Dred Scott. I realized that as many times as I have heard that name, I had no idea what it was. So, I tracked it down at FindLaw and started reading.

And was absolutely horrified.

Reading that interpretation of what the founding fathers believed at the time of the Declaration and the writing of the Constitution made me re-evaluate all those statements I've heard about "Original Intent" and the people who are so adamant in returning to it. NOT for the better, let me add, and they weren't in very high standing anyway.

If this is the kind of stuff they believe, we're in much deeper trouble than even I thought. Rust never sleeps...

by MedfordTim on 06/17/2008 01:01:33 AM EST

Hey MedfordTim,

Thanks for the generous response to my posting.  It’s the first time I’ve ever posted anything so I am glad I wasn’t shot down right out of the gate. 

Anyway, I totally agree with you on Dred Scott – it is an embarrassment.  And while I think you are right in wondering if the words “original intent” isn’t actually code-speak for something else, I personally have the same sort of skepticism when people start waxing eloquent about “state’s rights” vis-à-vis civil rights.

You know, Chief Justice Taney wrote another a fairly famous opinion on a request for a writ of habeas corpus when he was circuit riding – ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861).  I don’t think it is on FindLaw so here is a link:  http://www.tourolaw.edu/Pat ch/Merryman/

I was tempted to forgive him for Dred Scott for about a second – then I remembered the “beings of an inferior order” quip.  With that said, however, it is a very powerfully written opinion.      &nb sp;

by randall on 06/17/2008 04:37:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I realize that Merryman involved a citizen on U.S. soil and has no real relevence in the current brou-ha-ha, but the following is worth repeating for all those "Original Intent" folks to choke on. Imagine if Bush had been following the job description laid out by Taney:

"The article begins by declaring that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America, to hold his office during the term of four years; and then proceeds to prescribe the mode of election, and to specify, in precise and plain words, the powers delegated to him, and the duties imposed upon him. The short term for which he is elected, and the narrow limits to which his power is confined, show the jealousy and apprehension of future danger which the framers of the constitution felt in relation to that department of the government, and how carefully they withheld from it many of the powers belonging to the executive branch of the English government which were considered as dangerous to the liberty of the subject; and conferred (and that in clear and specific terms) those powers only which were deemed essential to secure the successful operation of the government.

"He is elected, as I have already said, for the brief term of four years, and is made personally responsible, by impeachment, for malfeasance in office; he is, from necessity, and the nature of his duties, the commanderinchief of the army and navy, and of the militia, when called into actual service; but no appropriation for the support of the army can be made by congress for a longer term than two years, so that it is in the power of the succeeding house of representatives to withhold the appropriation for its support, and thus disband it, if, in their judgment, the president used, or designed to use it for improper purposes. And although the militia, when in actual service, is under his command, yet the appointment of the officers is reserved to the states, as a security against the use of the military power for purposes dangerous to the liberties of the people, or the rights of the states.

"So too, his powers in relation to the civil duties and authority necessarily conferred on him are carefully restricted, as well as those belonging to his military character. He cannot appoint the ordinary officers of government, nor make a treaty with a foreign nation or Indian tribe, without the advice and consent of the senate, and cannot appoint even inferior officers, unless he is authorized by an act of congress to do so. He is not empowered to arrest any one charged with an offence agaisnt the United States, and whom he may, from the evidence before him, believe to be guilty; nor can he authorize any officer, civil or military, to exercise this power, for the fifth article of the amendments to the constitution expressly provides that no person 'shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law'that is, judicial process.

"Even if the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus were suspended by act of congress, and a party not subject to the rules and articles of war were afterwards arrested and imprisoned by regular judicial process, he could not be detained in prison, or brought to trial before a military tribunal, for the article in the amendments to the constitution immediately following the one above referred to (that is, the sixth article) provides, that 'in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.'

"The only power, therefore, which the president possesses, where the 'life, liberty or property' of a private citizen is concerned, is the power and duty prescribed in the third section of the second article, which requires 'that he shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed.'"

by MedfordTim on 06/17/2008 11:57:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Taney was the hack Jackson made CJ of SCOTUS.

Taney "qualifications" were he was the thug who agreed to kill the Bank of the US when no reasonable Jackson subordinate would.

Taney had no legal background.  He got approved because Jackson dominated Congress.

Taney is worst CJ ever.  Period.

When the country began to move toward rejecting slavery, Taney and his fellow Southerners on the court, just shut the entire movement down by issuing blatantly partisan decisions with no legal or moral basis.  They just said whatever would protect slavery.

Their intransigence and partisanship was a major cause of the Civil War.  One branch of the government essentially seized the power to thwart the will of the other two.  The system strained and broke under the pressure.  100,000s of Americans died.

To hear that hack Gingrich (who is allegedly a historian) out this decision in the same class (much less label it worse than) the Dred Scott decision can only be interpreted as Gingrich being willing to say ANYTHING to pimp his side or Gingrich is an inveterate racist.

I guess there is a third option: he has no idea what he is talking about. 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 01:28:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]