![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
*FINALLY* figured it out...
Apr. 14th, 2005 08:29 amA lot of extremists use the "Dred Scott" decision as a kind of code to talk about the problems with the courts.
Now, the Dred Scott decision was a sad one, but, by the law of the land, it was a necessary one. Slaves were property; leaving a slave state should not deprive you of your property. It puts a bad taste in my mouth to do so much as *write* those words, but that's the way the law was written, and the Dred Scott decision was solid legal reasoning. Painful, but solid.
Now, reading a link about the courts, I finally understand.
The Dred Scott decision said that free states must accept certain laws from other states... if one state declares something right and lawful, other states must declare it lawful, and at least acceptable.
Kind of like saying if you're married in one state, you're married, period.
*THAT* finally clears up a bit of a puzzle that's been niggling at me for a long time.
Now, the Dred Scott decision was a sad one, but, by the law of the land, it was a necessary one. Slaves were property; leaving a slave state should not deprive you of your property. It puts a bad taste in my mouth to do so much as *write* those words, but that's the way the law was written, and the Dred Scott decision was solid legal reasoning. Painful, but solid.
Now, reading a link about the courts, I finally understand.
The Dred Scott decision said that free states must accept certain laws from other states... if one state declares something right and lawful, other states must declare it lawful, and at least acceptable.
Kind of like saying if you're married in one state, you're married, period.
*THAT* finally clears up a bit of a puzzle that's been niggling at me for a long time.
