Original Intent

Question 1

What are the main issues in Dred Scott v. Sanford?

Answer 1

1. Conflict of Laws
2. Is the case properly within the jurisdiction of federal courts?
3. Do they have to recognize the Missouri Compromise?

Question 2

What is the courts holding on the first issue in Dred Scott?

Answer 2

Missouri municipal courts are not required to recognize freedom given by IL laws

Question 3

What is the court’s holding on the second issue presented in Dred Scott?

Answer 3

Case is not properly within jurisdiction of federal courts because Scotts are not citizens of MO and thus have no standing to bring a diversity action.

(a) Rejects “Spirit” understanding
(b) Doctrine of original intent using Text
(c) Determining subjective intent of the framers

Question 4

What is the court’s holding on the third issue in Dred Scott?

Answer 4

Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional because it violates 5th amendment by depriving slave owners of property

(a) Structure and spirit of Constitution
(b) This reading is at odds with his subjective intent of Framers’ reading in the first half

Question 5

What are the problems with the Dred Scott decision?

Answer 5

(1) Original intent is a bad way to go about things because the nation is constantly changing and interpretations of the Constitution should change with it
(2) Don’t want to read Constitution in such a way that it prevents later generations from making necessary changes
(3) Taney could have gotten the actual intent wrong  this seems likely
(4) McCulloch says that Constitution is flexible and must be read to benefit public
(5) Also, Taney looks to prudence, needs of the nation, inferences about text and structure, and modern developments – and we are not pleased by this interpretive approach (as wel are not pleased by his originalism approach)