-
-
States' Liberty Party Online Store
-
\
|
Let Freedom Ring |
Great Scott! Was there Nothing to Learn from the Dreadful Dred Scott Decision?The 1857 Dred Scott decision is largely believed responsible for the divisive Civil War. A Negro who had lived and worked on free soil before returning to his home "slave" state, had sued for citizenship. The Court, without any constitutional justification, found that it could not grant citizenship to a Negro without also granting him all of the freedoms of a free people. This posed a problem in a land that had both free states and slave states. Granting citizenship to a Negro would ultimately bring down the house of cards, eliminating slavery in the United States, the latter of which was protected by the Constitution. What is important to us is the Dred Scott decision affirmed that the Constitution gave the Court a power and duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens from oppressive state laws; eleven years before the Civil Rights Fourteenth Amendment was written! Justification was the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, reading:
What the Court realized was that a uniformity of privileges and immunities among the several States could be achieved only by a federal enforcement of these rights. This, from Dred Scott:
More than just receiving First Amendment rights, the Court understood then that it's approx 20 year later "separate but equal" decision giving Negroes a back seat on the bus would not be legal under Article IV of the Constitution:
It would not seem that "separate but equal" could withstand the 1857 Dred Scott interpretation of Article IV of the Constitution, and it is obvious that the Court believed it was bound to protect the rights of any <u>citizen</u> from abusive State law targeting a minority. If any doubt remains it is removed shortly following, here:
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified just eleven years later, after a brutal civil war, reiterated the rights inherent in this clause in the original Constitution, spelling them out in detail so that there could be no mistaking what the clause was intended for. The Fourteenth Amendment begins "All persons born or naturalized within the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Intent of this clause is a spelling out of the article IV clause, and to extend citizenship to former slaves. "The jurisdiction" of the United States entitles "citizens of the several states" to "all privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States. The second clause of the Fourteenth Amendment completes Article IV, reading: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State”. Due process is a fundamental right of free citizens and therefore is inherent to the privileges and immunities of United States citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, in it's third clause, extends the right to due process to even non-citizens, who otherwise do not have all of the privileges and immunities of United States citizens: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Equal Protection, inherent in Due Process, is merely spelled out in plain language so there can be no mistaking that Negroes are equal to Whites under the law, whether a citizen or non-citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment, having created no new powers excepting a due process extension to non-citizens and birthright of citizenship, cannot be construed as a new law which gave the federal government an authority to usurp the power of state government, for the federal balance of powers between Washington and the States is, itself, a privilege or immunity of United States citizens. The Ninth and Tenth amendments, created three years after the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause in the original Constitution, unerringly place most powers in the hands of the States, and respectively the citizens, not with the federal government. The federal Supreme Court should not be regulating religion in the States nor should it be involving itself in a redefining of moral values. The religious values upon which this nation was founded are binding, unless and until the people of the United States give new instructions to the Court. Religious freedom is to be federally protected. Non-procreative deviant sexual activity cannot be a fundamental right of free citizens, but the people through their local governments may freely tolerate or condone such values, as many do today. -States' Liberty Party, August 25, 2003 |
Send mail to
webmaster@liberty-ca.org with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
