(05-01-2025 02:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote: (04-30-2025 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Sure thing.
Slaves -- SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property. Can no more afford due process to a slave than afford due process to a '83 Trans Am in their view.
Most find that all of: repugnant, misguided, and racist.
I hope that angle isnt the saving grace for a rationale for 'others' not being "persons" under the 5th and 14th in your view.
American Indians -- same story, slightly different tune. Consistent rulings that touched upon 'their own nation' were a cover for rulings denying due process. Even though due process was afforded Italians, Irish, Brits, French, various Germanic nationalities, Russsians blah blah blah blah.
Apparently non-naturalized Irish were afforded due process even though being of 'another nation', and American Indians were not while being of another nation.
Kind of obvious in the discrepancies that the rulings were permeated with rank discrimination based on 'red skin' or not.
Again, if you want to use either as a great counter-example for denying 'others' due process, that might be treading on some thin ice.
I see you havent explicitly made that argument. Just insistently asked for an answer twice in rapid succession tonite, which indicates some wish to use those as a grand counter example.
The argument that blacks, Indians, and whole host of others today arent 'persons' can be quite the balancing act to pull off without going full blown racist garbage. Id tread pretty lightly around that issue -- especially so given the explicit history of the groups and the rulings about them in a much, much, much earlier time.
Thanks for the reply.
As you stated "Slaves -- SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property."
In the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The Court held that enslaved individuals were not citizens and did not have standing in federal courts, even after they were freed. This decision effectively treated slaves as property rather than as individuals entitled to due process or citizenship rights.
The actual ruling says: "The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind."
Quote: To me the key word here is citizen of the USA.
The issue in Dred was whether he was a citizen of a state, and entitled to rights as a citizen of state to sue. Specifically in Dred:
"A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State."
The Dred Scott simply said (paraphrase) 'slaves == property. Dred Scott, being property, and not a citizen of a state, cannot sue in state court. This case is dismissed because property cannot sue'.
Quote:The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was effectively overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery throughout the United States, while the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves.
The key word here is citizenship.
The key is that slaves were deemed to be property.
Quote:As far as the Native Americans in the USA. They had none of these Rights until 1924 when they were granted citizenship.
The Fifth Amendment rights for Native Americans are not directly tied to a specific date but rather to their status as U.S. citizens. Native Americans were granted full U.S. citizenship in 1924 with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act.
This act declared Indigenous persons born within the United States to be U.S. citizens, which included the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment.
Its way more complicated than that. If what you state were the case, there would be zero access to due rights to *any* person not a citizen.
The caselaw from that era goes out of their way to recognize a vast large number non-citizens being afforded due process -- in any number of arenas. Brits, French, Italians, Irish -- pretty much any Western or Eastern European heritage. But not Asians, and not Indians.
The exclusion of Asians and Indians, and the explicit inclusion of white non-citizens to due process -- kind of deep sixes your 'no non-citizens were afforded due process' stance. In short, the exclusion of Indians readily appears to be racially motivated, since all the non-citizen Brits, Irish, Scot, German, French, Italian, Canadian etc etc etc were afforded those rights you say were missing.
Quote: Illegals do not have all these Rights that you and Elvis speak of from what I can see. All I see is the court system pissing on the Constitution.
I suggest you call up SCOTUS and say how they have it all wrong, and have had it all wrong for the better part of a hundred and fifty years.
It is true that aliens who have once passed through our
gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceed
ings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-en
compassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immi
grant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903).
Ill be happy cite you a good 15-20 other SCOTUS cases that use this as a basis, and maybe 100 appellate decisions.
/
[NEWS] Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
![[Image: whoops-my.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/5TRq69vpDz0AAAAM/whoops-my.gif)
![[Image: laugh-movie.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/x36XgVaLKk0AAAAM/laugh-movie.gif)
