Just read part of The Dred Scott decision today and I am curious to know how, if the decision was intending to understand what the constitution meant by citizen and person.
Clearly, the intent of the founding fathers was to allow slavery and not to count slaves as citizens or persons. How does this match with strict constructionism?
I am very interested to hear thoughtful opinions explaining this to me. I am also curious to understand how President Bush could both advocate strict constructionism and revile this decision (which he does) if it is indeed an originalist/constructionist decision.
FROM THE DRED SCOTT DECISION:
The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing...The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [i.e. any slave or ex-slave] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.
FROM THE CONSTITUTION
Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.