LAD # 18

After some confusion between Justice Roger Taney and other Justices about his Scott vs. Sanford Court case decision, this was a man who elected to jive the common mans opinion. He gave a very harsh response to this case. Taney addressed three main issues, first the right of Scott to sue in a federal court, second the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, and third was the idea of slaves as property. Taney first argued that due to the fact that Scott was a black, he was not legally a citizen and did not have the right to sue the federal court. Second he argued that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional due to the fact that it deprived many citizens of their right to property. Since slaves were considered property at the time, this was unconstitutional, because it did deprive citizens of there property. Lastly he argued that even if a slave was to move into a state where it was banned, they were still there owner’s property and must be returned to their owners. In conclusion, Scott went back to involuntary servitude as a slave. Ultimately, Taney referred the case to a lower court for lack of federal jurisdiction.