JC> BIG difference between a statement that says the Constitution says 
lavery
  > was _legal_ (as Charles "implied") and your statement that says the
  > Constitution "implies". I won't disagree with a statement that says 
anythin
  > about what the Constitution "implies" (or "means" or "can be interpreted 
as
  > saying"). BTW, the "implication" reasoning or the "but the Constitution
  > doesn't say it's _illegal_ therefore it must be legal" reasoning usually
  > don't hold much water when arguing a case before the Supreme Court.
Well, actually the Supreme Court is not *supposed* to listen to those
arguements.  Sometimes it *does*.
JC> As for slavery... Several times prior to the Revolution several colonies 
on
  > their own (such as Georgia, Delaware, Massachusetts and maybe others) had
  > tried to ban slavery at one time or another. Slavery was an issue that 
he
  > "founding fathers" (whom all  Americans revere 
a
  > wise old gentlemen and put them on pedestals) didn't have the guts to 
outla
Oh, that's right.  Practically godly in every way.  Especially if one
considers some of the Greek and Roman gods.  (g)
  > when they had the chance. Whether they _intentionally_ wanted to keep the
  > practice is probably debatable. The practice violated every _natural_ law
I expect some did, and some did not....
  > known to humankind and had been virtually unknown throughout the 
"civilized
  > world for a few hundred years before the Europeans decided to revive the
  > practice in the Western Hemisphere. The "founding fathers" did not have 
the
  > nerve to declare it legal in writing in the face of world-wide opinion.
  > After all, the Revolution was a "fight for freedom" was it not? How could
  > they write "all men are created equal" and also write "slavery is legal 
n
  > the United States of America"? It wouldn't look good to the rest of the
  > world. So they ignored the issue and hoped no one would notice.
And of course no one did!  (g)
JC> 5. Taney was appointed to the Supreme Court by Andrew Jackson. (I'll let 
yo
  > make up your own mind about Jackson. )
Oh, you mean the president that, after the Supreme Court ruled that
removal of the Cherokees from their land in North Carolina was illegal,
said, "Well, I have the troops and you don't"; and then sent the army
in and removed the Cherokees, forcing them to march to Oklahoma in the
winter?  That noble soul?
JC> BTW, the case I am going to write about for my term paper in my U.S.
  > Constitution seminar is: Washington State v. the Yakima Nation heard in 
197
  > It deals with Public Law 280 and tribal jurisdiction in legal cases.
I would like it if you summarized your term paper here.  By the way, I
do know a little about the case.
                          Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ I'm an antisolipsist.  Everybody exists except me.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.7 
---------------