Study Notes on Dred Scott v. Sandford

James Madison: "[O]pinions were so various and at first so crude that it was necessary they should be long debated before any uniform system of opinion could be formed… [N]o man felt himself obliged to retain his opinion any longer than he was satisfied of their propriety and truth, and was open to the force of argument."
Learned Hand: "The spirit of liberty [is that spirit which] is not too sure that it is right."

Myths surrounding the Dred Scott case and the myths formed by Americans about it
True lessons of Dred Scott concerning contemporary constitutional issues:
- Affirmative action
- Homosexuality
- Right to die

The Dred Scott case stands out as perhaps the most significant case in U.S. Supreme Court history and possibly in global constitutional history.
Its teaching has been largely neglected, even in legal education, often being omitted or treated as a mere footnote in the context of the Civil War.

Judicial Review:
- Dred Scott marked the first Supreme Court case invalidating a federal law since Marbury v. Madison, thus signifying a real exercise of judicial review.
Political Morality:
- It aimed to extricate a political and moral issue—slavery—from political discourse, serving as a precursor to later significant cases from the New Deal and Warren Court.
Substantive Due Process:
- The case heralded the idea of substantive due process, utilized in various notable rulings, including Roe v. Wade and controversies over the right to die.
Original Intent:
- It was one of the earliest cases relying heavily on the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, foreshadowing methodologies adopted later by justices like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

The Constitution as Pro-Slavery:
- Myth: The original Constitution supported and entrenched slavery.
- Reality: Legally, this is false, as the Constitution does not explicitly endorse slavery.
- Reference: Justice Thurgood Marshall's acknowledgment during the bicentennial.
Taney’s Morality:
- Myth: Chief Justice Taney was a morally obtuse figure leading an incompetent Court.
- Reality: While this view has some merit, it misses the broader context involving the role of the Supreme Court in governance and democratic citizenry.
Intentions of the Framers:
- Myth: Dred Scott was flawed because it deviated from the framers' intentions in favor of its own socio-political perspective.
- Reality: Dred Scott claims originalism but was heavily criticized for misinterpreting the framers' original intentions, leading to its controversial standing.

The Supreme Court should generally refrain from resolving deeply divisive political and moral issues, favoring decisions that allow for democratic debate.
Casuistic Approach:
1. Decide specific cases rather than broadly principle-based rulings.
2. Focus on imperfect, theoretical agreements to navigate disputes.

Affirmative Action:
- Courts should not invalidate affirmative action based solely on judicial scrutiny, as debates and discussions in democratic politics can be beneficial. Judicial reluctance could serve as hubris, similar to Dred Scott's arrogance in settling profound issues prematurely.
Right to Die:
- Handle incrementally, recognizing outdated laws may not reflect current values. Legislative support for intrusions on personal liberty must be bolstered by contemporary deliberation rather than antiquated statutes.
Sexual Orientation Discrimination:
- Incrementalism is encouraged; while discrimination may be constitutionally questionable, courts should exercise caution before entering politically sensitive territories.

Dred Scott: Born circa 1799; possibly named Sam, described as illiterate yet possessing practical wisdom. Initiated his case after a failed purchase of his freedom.
Peter and Elizabeth Blow: Initial owners of Scott, who moved with him and contributed to his narrative.
Dr. John Emerson: Scott’s owner after the Blows, significantly impacting the case through Scott's residency in free states and territories.
Harriet Robinson: Scott’s wife, married during their time in free territory, they had four children who were subsequently implicated in the case.
Irene Emerson: Defending Scott’s owner in court.
John Sanford: Emerson's brother-in-law, executor of her estate, label suggests a retention of property rights over Scott.

Scott's claims: Argued constitutional provisions of Illinois and the Missouri Compromise, asserting that his time in free states liberated him.
Arguments from Sandford:
- Contended Scott could not sue due to lack of citizenship and that Congress did not possess the power to declare a slave free post-residency in a free state.

Major Legal Questions:

Federal Court Jurisdiction:
- Determine Scott’s status as a citizen of Missouri for federal court standing.
Constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise:
- Examine whether Scott's residence in free territories impacted his legal status.
Effect of Transportation:
- Analyze if Scott remained a slave due to his travel into states that prohibited slavery.

Citizen Status:
- Taney ruled Scott was not a Missouri citizen, claiming descendants of American slaves could not claim citizenship or rights, thus denying federal jurisdiction.
Validity of Missouri Compromise:
- Taney’s analysis culminated in declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, arguing that Congress lacked authority to limit slavery in territories acquired post-1789.
Three-Fifths Clause:
- Noted discrepancies whereby freed slaves could exist under the Constitution while asserting the inferiority of African descendants.

The ruling established a troubling interpretation characterized as "originalism" by stating historical subjugation justified exclusion from citizenship.
Taney’s application of substantive due process first arose from Dred Scott, suggesting that property rights (slavery) were reinforced within the Constitution.