It was literally Taney's argument that the existence of discriminatory laws proved that free black Americans were definitionally not citizens, rather than treating their exercise of key aspects of citizenship as the starting point.https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1424723653346873348 …
-
-
If you're moving the goalposts from "there were not black people living as free citizens" to "not all free black Americans were citizens under the laws of their states," then you've conceded the point.https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1424726715906076679 …
Show this thread -
I've written about the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, which overturned Dred & settled the question of whether states could have different definitions of citizenshiphttps://www.nationalreview.com/corner/constitutional-originalism-requires-birthright-citizenship/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You got me rereading some parts of Fehrenbacher's book on Dred Scott. P. 414, he points out that Curtis's dissent was constitutional conservatism; it was Taney & rest of majority who were the "radical innovators."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is actually exactly his original point, which you ignored. For....reasons
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do you not know how to read? That was literally his point.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.