The Court in Dred Scott believed it was taking the issue of slavery out of politics by "constitutionalizing" it. Should the Court use SDP to create new unenumerated liberties in order to remove politically controversial issues from the political process?
Did it work out well in 1857?
If you believe Dred Scott was a wrong decision, what do you think is wrong about it? Is it the Court substituting its political judgment for the political judgment of Congress? Or is it okay for the Court to impose its will so long as its will is based upon good moral principles? Who should decide which code of morality and justice is the correct one?
Was Justice Taney's use of SDP in Dred Scott an example of judicial activism? Why or why not?
-
Monday August 28 : Handout on Moore v Harper (PDF has been emailed to you); Originalism vs. the "Living Constitution": Strau...
-
I. Tinker A student's right to speak (even on controversial subjects such as war) in the cafeteria, the playing field, or "on the...
-
"Studying the Constitution has some of the same intellectual delight as reading Aristotle: it opens the mind on a subject of fi...
No comments:
Post a Comment