General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHuckabee: Dred Scott Decision “Remains To This Day The Law Of The Land”
While defending Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis refusal to issue marriage licenses out of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage, Mike Huckabee said Wednesday that the Supreme Courts 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford which held that all blacks, free or enslaved, could not be American citizens is still the law of the land even though no one follows it.
Radio host Michael Medved quickly pointed out to the former governor of Arkansas that the decision was overturned by the 13th Amendment. (Although the 13th Amendment ended slavery, the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision.)
Ive been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, How dare you say that, uh, its not the law of the land? Huckabee said. Because thats their phrase, its the law of the land. Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people arent fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?
<snip>
http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/huckabee-dred-scott-decision-remains-to-this-day-the-law-of
Do Jeebus!
Mass
(27,315 posts)going against this decision, I think.
Huckabee is an idiot.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)believe that idiot actually said that. The whole R panel of candidates are the lowest of low.
Wonder how Ben Carson is taking his new status?
Hong Kong Cavalier
(4,572 posts)"Hello? Mr Fuckabee? Fourteenth Amendment here. Shut the fuck up."
shenmue
(38,506 posts)just threw up.
louis-t
(23,292 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)And it doesn't make gay men straighter the deeper one goes into it.
irisblue
(32,969 posts)is that what you meant?
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, no, that is not just a decision each individual makes not to follow the Dred Scott decision.
Unfuckingbelievable. I'm sorry, but someone needs to say it: You cannot make up this shit.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)a functioning autonomic nervous system.
LiberalLoner
(9,761 posts)Smarter than Hucklebuckle.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)freebrew
(1,917 posts)it's expected.
Really unfortunate for our government and our future.
Are these the best and brightest the R's have to offer?
Now, that's scary!
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)but back then there were conservative, moderate and even (GASP!) liberal Republicans. Imagine: normal people in the GOP. Thinking back, we didn't know how good we had it. I'm afraid I won't live to see normal Republicans again.
It's just an unmitigated freak show now.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A Supreme Court decision is a bundle of things. Obviously, the part of the Dred Scott decision dealing with the direct question of the Fugitive Slave Act was rendered inoperative by the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution.
The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision insofar as a person born in the United States could be denied the privileges and immunities of any state, upon taking up residence in another state. However, the Dred Scott decision did establish that persons (otherwise recognized as citizens) are citizens of the their state of residence, and that no state can grant "state citizenship" to a person who is not otherwise a US citizen.
That "Dred Scott is still good law" is one of those inane "fun facts to impress your friends" which is pointed out to law students when the case comes up in con law class.
If, for example, you live in New York and you drive to Connecticut, the state of Connecticut can't take your car away from you, on the ground that your car is not registered to you in Connecticut. Your car is titled to you in New York, and Connecticut is bound by the Constitution to recognize your New York registration, provided you have not left New York permanently and taken up residence in Connecticut (most states provide a grace period for re-registration of your car when you move).
What the Reconstruction Amendments did to Dred Scott was to prevent its application to the ownership of PEOPLE, and ended the non-recognition of rights of citizenship, by any state, to people who were born into a condition of servitude in the US.
One of the other points at issue was whether a person who was not recognized as a citizen either by their former state or by the United States, could become a US citizen by moving to a state which would recognize that person as a citizen. The answer at that time was "no", and it remains "no". Of course, in the context of that case, the reason why the person was not recognized as a citizen by their state of origin or the US, was because he was born a slave in a slave state. Hence, not having been a citizen of the US, he did not become one by moving to another state. That, of course, no longer applies to persons born in the US. But the general principle, of course, still applies that only US law can determine whether someone is a citizen of the US or a citizen of the state in which they reside. For example, a state cannot recognize an undocumented immigrant as a citizen of that state, if the US does not recognize that person as a citizen.
That said, the statement by Huckabee is breathtakingly stupid in its context here. The general principle of Dred Scott - that US law determines citizenship and that state citizenship is determined by residence - is thoroughly mundane, and thoroughly irrelevant to anything going on in the Kentucky marriage license follies.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Nice, informative post.
Stallion
(6,474 posts)It has a Negative Treatment index a mile long-most cases say it has been superseded by statute including the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no way to delete a former opinion in the law books like you can a statute which may be amended or may be repealed-bad opinions are there forever although the legal precedent may reject all or part of it like the prior poster pointed out
Initech
(100,068 posts)They should be supporting Huckabee, he seems to more openly cater to their interests.
klook
(12,154 posts)for Republican voters shopping around for the most regressive candidate. Phuckabee is making a strong challenge to tRump's position as Imperial Wizard of the RKK.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I understand Suckabee was trying to make a point (a bad one which is false), but STILL...what does Dred Scott have to do with marriage equality? Here let me answer that - NOTHING!
Pathetic, history FAIL.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think that is the angle he is going for.
malaise
(268,968 posts)and he may well wish it were still so.
mercuryblues
(14,531 posts)HUCKABEE: I, I almost wish there could be a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced,...FORCED at gun point no less,...to listen to EVERY David Barton message.
David Barton is where huckster gets his edumacation from. David Barton who had a book on Jefferson pulled from publication because it had so many lies in it. Ironically it was titled Jefferson Lies: Exposing the myths you always believed about Jefferson.
In the rightwing nuttery circuit Barton is considered a genius. Barton teaches only Christians are eligible to hold public office, according to the Constitution.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)Amendments that are ratified nullify any conflicting SCOTUS constitutional interpretations. The SCOTUS cannot disobey the Constitution, it can only interpret it.
That is why you will have to amend the Constition to protect your precious little fetuses, you jackass. But that will not happen..hahahah.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,454 posts)lykemike
(25 posts)Don't all repubs believe I'm less than a man? Huckabee's remarks actually provide insight as to why that is. Not at all surprising in today's GOP.
DR. Carson will need 3x as many votes just to tie Donald Trump.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)in a nutshell since neither of us (or about 99% of the USA in general) are not wealthy white men we really do not matter in their eyes.
Oh and welcome to DU
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)being on the ballot for the office of President. He is an abject moron, to say the least.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)help bring the greatest damage.
tclambert
(11,085 posts)See, Republicans, and especially Teabaggers, really, really revere the Constitution. They don't need to actually read it because they all know instinctively what's in the Constitution and what it really means. Anything in the Constitution they don't agree with they call unconstitutional. If you try to explain what the word "unconstitutional" means, then you're just some kind of grammar nazi, and they know what they mean and they know what they know and they do so love the constitution even if the only part of it they can quote from memory is about half of the Second Amendment.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,585 posts)Truthiness - When you feel it in your gut, you know it must be right.
no_hypocrisy
(46,088 posts)Would have been better to cite:
A) U.S. v. Koramatsu - Federal government can legally detain and imprison citizens without habeus corpus based on their ethnicity. While the government doesn't do this anymore, the decision hasn't been overturned or overruled.
B) Bell v. Buck - State governments can legally sterilize any resident with due process if there is a statute allowing such procedure. I believe the trend peaked and dwindled by 1977. Again, while not done as policy anymore, the law is still viable.
My point: If a "rogue" government employee was ordered to facilitate sterilization or detaining a citizen on the basis of "national security", and that employee refused to execute that order on the basis of personal religion, the same situation exists: the employee has to resign if s/he can't implement the order. Until the law is changed, the employee has to either follow the law or resign under protest.
samsingh
(17,595 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)To be so horribly clueless and allowed access to a TV Camera and/or microphone is a dangerous thing. And what's worse is the idiots out there that would want him to be the President of their United States.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)spanone
(135,830 posts)i fart in his general direction
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Surely Ted Cruz will set Huckabee straight on how the Constitution and the courts work.
Let's hope.
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)apparently amendments stop being valid after the 2nd?
gordianot
(15,237 posts)Segregation is several levels ahead of what he suggests. Huckabee his delusions, fallacies, fantasies and misinterpretations are not to just get attention.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I still say this is the kind of thing that comes from gin drinkers.
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)the days when a stupid or offensive statement knocked you right out of the race, no apology awaited. The GOP low bar has been replaced simply by "the drinks are on the GOP house bar" with a wink at the supposedly non-acoholic beverages of the values wing. And when things get more serious with fewer contenders there are no recalls of past blunders, crimes, gaffes at all- and even less acknowledgment when they continue on the campaign trail because- hey- by now the anointed GOP candidate has almost reached apotheosis.
The Democrats on the other hand have almost hardened themselves in many cases into reviled sainthood, despised intelligence, either in public appearance or in actuality.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)the job of Congress.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Period.