tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1665619563748706349.post8206116124348499375..comments2023-10-07T07:44:17.892-07:00Comments on The New Englander: The Value of 625,000The New Englanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06201310505648616855noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1665619563748706349.post-72409364929112393372010-06-06T20:00:11.835-07:002010-06-06T20:00:11.835-07:00While I am not down on Jaywalking laws (except may...While I am not down on Jaywalking laws (except maybe Mayor Guiliani's zeal in enforcement), there are other issues out there that one side could push the other to conclude that the activity is as morally wrong as slavery. While this may put me in the same boat as CJ Taney, I find the 80/80 split on abortion to be a good thing for the nation. On the one hand, 80% of the People think abortion should be available. On the other hand, 80% of the People think that abortion is wrong. Out of that we have a compromise. There will be adjustment along the margin, but barring a major change in how the People of the US view abortion, we are not going to have radical change.<br /><br />The closest we could come to real change regarding abortion would be for the SCOTUS to throw it back on the states. That would result in much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. And some adjustments in individual states. (I would like to underline "Individual" but this program won't take the "U" Tag, like it didn't take the ampersand Tag in a previous Comment.)<br /><br />These kinds of decisions are hard. We think of President Lincoln as being the man who ended slavery—we forget that to preserve the union he would have kept slavery, notwithstanding knowing how wrong it was. So over 600,000 Americans died because in the end the Southern states didn't trust President Lincoln on this issue. And Lincoln would not let them go.<br /><br />These kinds of decisions are also complex.<br /><br />Regards — CliffC R Kriegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563658418464959198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1665619563748706349.post-89533921487805835322010-06-06T04:21:06.040-07:002010-06-06T04:21:06.040-07:00You have to be careful with Dread Scott. There is...You have to be careful with Dread Scott. There is a line of research that says that Dread Scott was a correct ruling based on, if I recall correctly, the Contract Clause of the Constitution as it was interpreted at the time. I am not well enough read to have formed an opinion on that, but if we presume that CJ Taney believed that, you are presented with a very difficult moral question.<br /><br />To wit, you may not do something immoral that good may come of it. Do we believe that misinterpreting the law of the land is immoral? Is it reasonable to think, if you are CJ Taney, to believe that slavery was a political question assigned by the Constitution a protected status. In such circumstance, would it be immoral for the Supreme Court to arrogate to itself a question that should be addressed by Constitutional amendment?<br /><br />In the alternative, you could reasonably conclude that slavery is such an immoral institution that a Constitutional endorsement of it was of no weight and should be opposed by any means necessary. While I am sympathetic to that argument, it is a bit of a slippery slope. After all, I believe that jay walking laws are immoral . . .<br /><br />In the end, we are presented with a desirable position - the end of slavery - and a situation that, by the Grace of God, will not be repeated. We should all count ourselves lucky that we have not been presented with such a difficult test.<br /><br />the other cliffAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281996372143498957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1665619563748706349.post-39691816003732467672010-06-05T08:59:40.791-07:002010-06-05T08:59:40.791-07:00I come down on the "yes" side of was it ...I come down on the "yes" side of was it worth the cost in terms of dead and wounded—including the inevitable civilian dead. Slavery needed to end.<br /><br />I do think you were a bit hard on Chief Justice Roger B Taney. He was trying to do what he thought was the right thing and to preserve the Union. He failed and added fuel to the fire. Through to his death in October 1864 he was not impeached.<br /><br />Chief Justice Taney may have had a shot at immortality with the <i>Dread Scott</i> decision, but maybe not. The vote was seven to two. Thus, there is little likelihood that, had he a mind to, he would been able to make a dent in slavery with this decision.<br /><br />He sided with setting the slaves free in the <i>Amistad</i> case. He freed his own slaves and paid pensions to the older ones. He may not have been the terrible person so many think he is—of those who think of him at all.<br /><br />He was right on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman" rel="nofollow"><i>Ex parte Merryman</i></a> and President Lincoln was wrong.<br /><br />He was wrong with <i>Dread Scott</i>, but he was not alone.<br /><br />Regards — CliffC R Kriegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563658418464959198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1665619563748706349.post-89035216387146192372010-05-29T13:12:08.225-07:002010-05-29T13:12:08.225-07:00These line in your article is very nice for these ...These line in your article is very nice for these are "The reason this question has stayed with me for the past couple of days during my solitary time on 495 and 93, or the more scenic 133 to 28, or wherever else I was between Lowell and Reading for <a href="http://www.estudentaid.com/" rel="nofollow">student aid</a>, is that it's not as frequently-raised as questions like whether Lincoln truly deserves credit as a "Great Emancipator" or whether the antebellum North has a claim to moral superiority over its Southern neighbors at the time."Sagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403452630496614751noreply@blogger.com