The two most maligned Supreme Court decisions of all time are probably Dred Scott vs. Sanford and Plessy vs. Ferguson, both dealing with race relations. In the Dred Scott decision the Court basically reviewed the history and practice of race relations in the United States back to early colonial times and then used it's findings to decide that the full rights of American citizenship were only possessed by Whites, not by Blacks, whether slave or free, or by Native Americans.
In so doing the Court briefly listed a few of the rights which they clearly believed no person would question as belonging to White Americans, and asked in effect: "Do you really want Blacks to have these rights too?"
One of these rights was the ". . . . right to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
From Dred Scott vs. Sanford:
Quote:For if they (Black Americans) were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State. (Emphasis added.)
Clearly, it was the established view at that time that the "right to keep and carry arms wherever we went" (paraphrase) was a right beyond questioning, as long as one was White. Today of course that right would apply to any person who is a U.S. citizen and has reached the legal age of adulthood and not been deprived of his or her rights by the action of a court.
Also from Dred Scott vs. Sanford on the rights of citizens in the States:
Quote:But if he ranks as a citizen in the State to which he belongs, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then, whenever he goes into another State, the Constitution clothes him, as to the rights of person, will all the privileges and immunities which belong to citizens of the State. And if persons of the African race are citizens of a State, and of the United States, they would be entitled to all of these privileges and immunities in every State, and the State could not restrict them; for they would hold these privileges and immunities under the paramount authority of the Federal Government, and its courts would be bound to maintain and enforce them, the Constitution and laws of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. And if the States could limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior grade, this clause of the Constitution would be unmeaning, and could have no operation; and would give no rights to the citizen when in another State. He would have none but what the State itself chose to allow him. (Emphasis added)
One can certainly argue that the Court was wrong in concluding that Blacks were not citizens of the United States, but they clearly explained the rights of those who
were citizens and the fact that those rights superseded State law.
The Court in Dred Scott on the doctrine of Original Intent:
Quote:No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the Government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes. Higher and graver trusts have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path of duty. (Emphasis added)
Pages: 
A Theoretical Discussion (Read 1399 times)
