And again, speaking of ethics ..............

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I believe Ziggy has said he opposes abortion.

Ziggy has said he PERSONALLY opposes abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose.

As usual, you got it wrong again, Cato. I oppose abortion, period.

So you are saying the courts were wrong in Roe V Wade

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I believe Ziggy has said he opposes abortion.

Ziggy has said he PERSONALLY opposes abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose.

As usual, you got it wrong again, Cato. I oppose abortion, period.

So you are saying the courts were wrong in Roe V Wade

Abortion is a moral issue. The Courts are not in the busines of determining morality. The Courts are in the business of making legal and/or constitutional determinations in matters involving the law and the Constitution.

Constitutionally the Dred Dcott decision was spot on; the Constitution specifically condoned slavery.

Roe V Wade, like Dred Scott, was morally wrong but constitutionally correct, in my opinion. The cure for Dred Scott was the 13th Amendment. The cure for Roe V Wade would be a Constitutional Amendment against abortion- and which I would support.

Why do you consider abortion on demand a proper subject for the Supreme Court as opposed to the states?

ohio county wrote:Why do you consider abortion on demand a proper subject for the Supreme Court as opposed to the states?

I don't, necessarily.

But when, through the appeals processes, it gets to the Supreme Court, the Court has to decide to either make a ruling on the legal arguments, or kick it back to the states. And if the Court had decided to avoid the moral controversy and to NOT hear / consider the legal arguments and to kick it back to the states, I could have probably been OK with that too. But that is easy for me to say as I did not have a personal stake in the legal outcome- meaning that, when the issue came up on a personal level with my wife and me, I had already staked out a personal position against abortion- some years before Roe. V Wade came before the Supreme Court.

But since the Court did decide to weigh the constitutional arguments and rule on them, I think it made the constitutionally correct ruling. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse the Constitution allows freedoms that even an overwhelming majority of the people can find morally repugnant.

ziggy wrote:But since the Court did decide to weigh the constitutional arguments and rule on them, I think it made the constitutionally correct ruling.

There are those that disagree with you. A very interesting read.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html

Ridden with contradictions and highly debatable constitutional decisions, I hope that one day Roe v Wade is chalked up, just like Dred Scott v Sanford, as one of the grievous errors of the Supreme Court, and overturned.

Constitutionally, Scott V. Sanford was not a "grevious error". It was spot on.

Comparing Roe V Wade to the Dred Scott Case is a lousy legal comparison.

The author expressed his opinion.

You expressed yours.

The opinions stated in the following article are mine, however, I would like to thank James Goettel for helping with the relevant legal arguments, to ensure the legal accuracy of this article!

And have who ensuring your legal accuracy?

ziggy wrote: Abortion is a moral issue.

The cure for Roe V Wade would be a Constitutional Amendment against abortion- and which I would support.

How about a Constitutional Amendment against:

1. extra-marital sex
2. lying
3. profanity
4. atheists
5. etc.



.

ziggy wrote:
Constitutionally, Scott V. Sanford was not a "grevious error". It was spot on.

Not so. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed precedent set by Missouri lower courts and the Missouri Supreme Court itself, which had consistently ruled that slaves taken into free states were automatically free.

Before the decision reached the Supreme Court, President elect James Buchanan had communications with one Supreme Court justice to ensure the decision would be heard before his inauguration and then pressured the Chief Justice to concur with southern appointed judges so the decision wouldn't appear too based upon a north/south line.

The first thing the Supreme Court had to decide was if they had jurisdiction under Article III of the constitution. They determined they did not as Scott was a non-citizen and thus lacked the power to sue, so they never should have rendered a decision.

The case was full of controversaly, went against precedent, had outside influence from the incoming President of the United States and never should have been heard by the Supreme Court, so it was anything but 'spot on'. It should have been sent back to state court and precedent set by Missouri courts applied, which would have set Scott free.

Instead, it, like other controversaly cases, derferred to the prevailing public opinion of the times and in no way relied on the constitution in deciding the case.

The Constitution at the time of the Dred Scott case specifically authorized slavery, and Article IV allowed slave owners the absolute right to retrieve escaped slaves from another state.

Constitutionally Dred Scott had only those rights which his owner allowed to him.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: Abortion is a moral issue.

The cure for Roe V Wade would be a Constitutional Amendment against abortion- and which I would support.

How about a Constitutional Amendment against:

1. extra-marital sex
2. lying
3. profanity
4. atheists
5. etc.



.

There is precedent for that, with the 18th Amendment- but which, as a practical matter, was unworkable.

ziggy wrote:The Constitution at the time of the Dred Scott case specifically authorized slavery, and Article IV allowed slave owners the absolute right to retrieve escaped slaves from another state.

Constitutionally Dred Scott had only those rights which his owner allowed to him.

Dred Scott isn't about whether the constitution allowed slavery or not. That was never the question.

It is about whether someone had the right to retrieve a slave from a free state or terrority that did not allow slavery.

Missouri state law set precedent that once a slave was free, he was free. That is not debatable. When the Missouri Supreme Court said otherwise in the Scott decision, it went against it's own precedent.

As for Scott, yes, the Constitution recognized slavery. So much so that slaves weren't considered citizens, thus the Constitution did not apply to them, a slave had no right to sue in federal court, thus the Supreme Court couldn't hear the case.

The Court first had to decide whether it had jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that "the judicial Power shall extend... to Controversies... between Citizens of different States..." The Court first held that Scott was not a "citizen of a state" within the meaning of the United States Constitution, as that term was understood at the time the Constitution was adopted, and therefore not able to bring suit in federal court. Furthermore, whether a person is a citizen of a state, for Article III purposes, was strictly a federal question. This meant that although any state could confer state citizenship on an individual for purposes of state law, no state could confer state citizenship on an individual for purposes of Article III. In other words, the federal courts did not have to look to whom a state conferred citizenship when interpreting the words "citizen of... a state" in the federal Constitution. Rather, it was the federal courts who were to determine who was a citizen of a state for Article III purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Constitutional experts disagree with you but you're still entitled to it no matter how wrong it is. Nice try though.

Missouri state law set precedent that once a slave was free, he was free.

The U.S. Constitution said otherwise. Missouri state law could not trump the U.S. Constitution.

And have who ensuring your legal accuracy?

Legal accuracy as to whether the Courts did right or wrong is never "ensured". It is simply a matter of one legal opinion or another.

I'll note you've provided nothing to back up you inaccurate opinions.

Again.

Because if you did just a little research, you would find there are times Missouri law most certainly does trump the constitution. For instance, when the constitution says it does.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Recognize that? It's the 10th Amendment. It specifically says that unless a power is delegated to the United States, Missouri law does indeed trump the Constitution.

It also trumps the Constitution when the Constitution doesn't recognize a person as a citizen under Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, as was the case with Dred Scott specifically and slaves in general.

And as the constitution did not recognize Scott as a citizen under the Constitution, he had NO right to sue in federal court. And if he had no right to sue in federal court, the Supreme Court CAN NOT legally hear the case, thus they cannot render a decision.

So the case should have been decided by Missouri state court and in 1857, there was precedent set in Missouri that said once a slave entered a free state or territory, he was free.

Face it. You are wrong. Not because I say so but because the facts say so.

It's really that simple.

ziggy wrote:

And have who ensuring your legal accuracy?

Legal accuracy as to whether the Courts did right or wrong is never "ensured". It is simply a matter of one legal opinion or another.

And you atteneded law school where and studied the constitution where?

And as the constitution did not recognize Scott as a citizen under the Constitution, he had NO right to sue in federal court. And if he had no right to sue in federal court, the Supreme Court CAN NOT legally hear the case, thus they cannot render a decision.

The Constitution does not say that. It says, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

And you atteneded law school where and studied the constitution where?

In the post just above that one you were offering yourself as a constitutional expert- even suggesting that Missouri law could trump the U.S. Constitution.

And you attended law school where and studied the constitution where?

ziggy wrote:

And as the constitution did not recognize Scott as a citizen under the Constitution, he had NO right to sue in federal court. And if he had no right to sue in federal court, the Supreme Court CAN NOT legally hear the case, thus they cannot render a decision.

The Constitution does not say that. It says, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That whole citizenship thing there is the hangup.

And if that wasn't the case and the constitution didn't say that in 1857, then why did the court find in their opinion in Dred Scott that:

Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence.
The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to black people.
The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act because the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to Black people in the northern part of the Louisiana cession.

So according to the decision you hail as 'spot on' disagrees with what you're saying which means you're still wrong.

ziggy wrote:

And as the constitution did not recognize Scott as a citizen under the Constitution, he had NO right to sue in federal court. And if he had no right to sue in federal court, the Supreme Court CAN NOT legally hear the case, thus they cannot render a decision.

The Constitution does not say that. It says, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Aaron, Zigster is noted for ..... pulling a partial phrase out of a Legal Statute ........ and then claiming it applies to everything from ...... taking a crap ..... to flying to the moon.



The controlling Democrats in WV have been snookering him for so long that apparently he truly believes that is the way the Law is applied in the other 49 States.

.

The very case he calls 'spot on' Sam proves he's wrong. Life in the world of Ziggy.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

And as the constitution did not recognize Scott as a citizen under the Constitution, he had NO right to sue in federal court. And if he had no right to sue in federal court, the Supreme Court CAN NOT legally hear the case, thus they cannot render a decision.

The Constitution does not say that. It says, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Aaron, Zigster is noted for ..... pulling a partial phrase out of a Legal Statute ........ and then claiming it applies to everything from ...... taking a crap ..... to flying to the moon. [/center].

So Sam, if you think that means something other than what it says, then tell us what you think it does mean.

What it means Ziggy is that judicial power applies to all cases that meet the criteria set forth following the statement. By your reasoning it would apply to every case in law in the world.

What it means Ziggy is that judicial power applies to all cases that meet the criteria set forth following the statement.

Of course it does. Because that is what it says.

By your reasoning it would apply to every case in law in the world.

Again, why don't you focus on what I said instead of what I did not say?

I did. I told you that you are wrong in what you say.

Scott v. Sanford was a terrible decision by the US Supreme Court which never should have been heard.

The paragraph you posted PROVES that as was one of the opinions given by the justices in that very case.

Why can't you accept that you are wrong?