Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm trying to think of a rational explanation for bringing up Dread Scott in that question. The only thing that I can think of is that someone suggested it as a good example of why constitutional amendments can be a good thing, in case someone asked about the gay marriage amendment and he wanted to show that he knew a few Supreme Court cases.
|
The thing of it is, Bush could not have been more wrong about the Constitution there.
- Bush: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion; that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
Remember the Thirteenth Amendment? After Dred Scott, the Constitution was amended to forbid slavery. And the Equal Protection Clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment, also enacted later. It wasn't Justice Taney's personal opinion that the Constitution allowed slavery -- it was the law of the country for decades.
