Do you know about Dred Scott? He was a slave that sued the U.S Government in order to restore his freedom. To make a long story short, he moved to free territory (slavery was illegal) with his masters. He then sued the Fed's for his freedom asserting it was illegal to prohibit his freedom on free land. The United States Supreme court disagreed. The reasoning for such measures, according to the court, was that Dred Scott wasn't a "person." We can presume that this ruling was based merely on the color of skin. So the word person, as it is written in the constitution, does not apply for Mr. Scott.
Meanwhile, a corporation like Wal-Mart, because of previous precedent in federal courts, is considered a person. This, my fellow readers, was a historical moment in the American legal system. As soon as corporations were deemed humans, this automatically meant that corporations had more rights than Dred Scott as well as the slaves of that era. Talk about big business. On another note, it doesn't seem fair that a man can judge who is a human/person or not does it? Aren't we all humans? I guess not.
Since I read the book Constitutional Chaos by Andrew Napalitano, I've become a fan of his assertiveness in holding our government accountable for breaking its own laws. I'm excited about his new book, "Dred's Scott Revenge-A legal history of race in America," and I look forward to sharing with you the knowledge I gain from the read.
If you thought I was joking about Wal-Mart having more rights than a human, click here and see it with you own eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment