Basic Information

The architect Cass Gilbert had grand ambitions for his design of a new home for the Supreme Court--what he called "the greatest tribunal in the world, one of the three great elements of our national government." Gilbert knew that the approach to the Court, as much as the structure itself, would define the experience of the building, but the site presented a challenge. Other exalted Washington edifices--the Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial--inspired awe with their processional approaches. But in 1928 Congress had designated for the Court a cramped and asymmetrical plot of land, wedged tightly between the Capitol and the Library of Congress. How could Gilbert convey to visitors the magnitude and importance of the judicial process taking place within the Court's walls?
The answer, he decided, was steps. Gilbert pushed back the wings of the building, so that the public face of the building would be a portico with a massive imposing stairway. Visitors would not have to walk a long distance to enter, but few would forget the experience of mounting those forty-four steps to the double row of eight massive columns supporting the roof. The walk up the stairs would be the central symbolic experience of the Supreme Court, a physical manifestation of the American march to justice. The stairs separated the Court from the everyday world--and especially from the earthly concerns of the politicians in the Capitol-- and announced that the justices would operate, literally, on a higher plane. (Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor Books, 2008.)

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Dred Scott vs. Sandford 1857

I decided to address this case to the readers because it is a very well known case. We have all come across this case in our American History books. I find that if you set yourself in the mentality of the people at this time you can subjectively understand their point of view in the case, however, it does not constitute their actions as right. along with the decision of the case a justice stated, ". . . . . . We think they [people of African ancestry] 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. . . ." Personally, I would disagree with the aforementioned statement because Scott was considered free and therefor was considered citizen. the consideration of race should not judge a human's inclusion of society.

Facts of the Case:
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.

Question:
Was Dred Scott free or slave?

Conclusion:
Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)