Ah yes, you are correct about the Supreme Court - they can reverse themselves. But that would require one or more of the 5 that voted in favor to either change their mind or drop dead and be replaced by Christian conservative justice(s) that would vote their religious conviction over the Constitution.
And I would argue that the Supreme Court didn't get the Dred Scott case wrong from a legal standpoint as slaves were technically not citizens - the decision can be said to be morally wrong though.
"Curtis conducted an extensive historical review of statutes, case law, and demographic records and asserted that in five of the original 13 states, blacks had held citizenship at the time of the Constitution's ratification -- and that they had therefore voted and participated in the process of its ratification. It was "not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race,""Therefore, blacks were "in every sense part of the people of the United States [as] they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established."- Benjamin Curtis (dissent) As to Dred Scott himself, Taney's majority opinion contained obvious bias, but not totally without legal basis. However the decision went far, far beyond just Dred Scott and basically enslaved a whole population of prior free men, and then opened the entire west to slavery, by overturning existing law............."Slaves" were not citizens, correct, but there were black citizens, just not deemed as such by Taney et al. ............. Scott v. Sandford was little, in proportion, about Dred Scott and the results a travesty.
Ah yes, you are correct about the Supreme Court - they can reverse themselves. But that would require one or more of the 5 that voted in favor to either change their mind or drop dead and be replaced by Christian conservative justice(s) that would vote their religious conviction over the Constitution.
And I would argue that the Supreme Court didn't get the Dred Scott case wrong from a legal standpoint as slaves were technically not citizens - the decision can be said to be morally wrong though.
"Curtis conducted an extensive historical review of statutes, case law, and demographic records and asserted that in five of the original 13 states, blacks had held citizenship at the time of the Constitution's ratification -- and that they had therefore voted and participated in the process of its ratification. It was "not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race,""Therefore, blacks were "in every sense part of the people of the United States [as] they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established."- Benjamin Curtis (dissent) As to Dred Scott himself, Taney's majority opinion contained obvious bias, but not totally without legal basis. However the decision went far, far beyond just Dred Scott and basically enslaved a whole population of prior free men, and then opened the entire west to slavery, by overturning existing law............."Slaves" were not citizens, correct, but there were black citizens, just not deemed as such by Taney et al. ............. Scott v. Sandford was little, in proportion, about Dred Scott and the results a travesty.