Don't I remember correctly, though, that at the time of Dred Scott the Court hadn't ruled anything unconstitutional since Marbury? So basically they were saying "given the existing laws, this guy isn't entitled to any rights." So under that rubric, the question is whether that was in fact the state of the law at the time.
Then again, I only got a B- in Con Law. I could be very off here.
I suspect he's very serious. I'm not a student of the law so I'm at a severe disadvantage here, but the question does seem that absurd to me.
Gotta agree with thomasirvin. I presume that it isn't a question of the rightness or wrongness of slavery that Finkelman is considering. Wouldn't it be a question of the "correctness" of the specific court decision in light of the laws and precedents of the time, prior to the 13th and 14th ammendments?
If the lecture is to be in any way interesting, Finkelman would need to make a case that the decision should have gone the other way even under the biased framework of antebellum America, perhaps with consideration of the politically-motivated actions of the majority in the Taney court. I'd be curious what sort of historical-legal argument Finkelman is planning to make.
Could it in anyway turn into a backhanded way of trying to say that the originalist interpretation of the constitution practiced by Clarence Thomas and his pals on the SCOTUS is stupid? As in, if we do everything as the founding fathers said, we'd still have slavery? It's a living document, people.
Did you read that article about John Paul Stevens in the Times? He's a cool guy.
Comments 5
Then again, I only got a B- in Con Law. I could be very off here.
Reply
Gotta agree with thomasirvin. I presume that it isn't a question of the rightness or wrongness of slavery that Finkelman is considering. Wouldn't it be a question of the "correctness" of the specific court decision in light of the laws and precedents of the time, prior to the 13th and 14th ammendments?
If the lecture is to be in any way interesting, Finkelman would need to make a case that the decision should have gone the other way even under the biased framework of antebellum America, perhaps with consideration of the politically-motivated actions of the majority in the Taney court. I'd be curious what sort of historical-legal argument Finkelman is planning to make.
Reply
Sorry, not proofreading well this morning.
Reply
Reply
Did you read that article about John Paul Stevens in the Times? He's a cool guy.
Reply
Leave a comment