JC> Now _THAT_ we can agree upon. (And, of course, SC descisions are _still_
  > not consistent on _many_ subjects. )
That's true.  As someone I know said, in talking about civil rights
issues, "Even Supreme Court decisions have been known to be overturn by
a different set of judges."
JC> There is a fairly new book out called "The Oxford Companion to the
  > Supreme Court of the United States". It's a $55 book so I haven't bought 
it
  > (I _could_ get it through the History Book Club for $22, but I'm not sure
  > I need $22 worth of info on the SC. ) Anyway, it has a page or two on
  > SC cases related to slavery. If I find a copy somewhere and I can just 
copy
  > those couple of pages I can add some details, but I _think_ there _were_
  > some cases involving slavery and the SC earlier than the 1829 case you 
re
  > citing. (I didn't have time to sit on the floor of the bookstore making
  > notes. )
I'm open to it not being the earliest.  Like you, I probably wouldn't
buy that book.  I try to avoid buying books I will almost never use.
JC> But, to take this one case... IMHO, the case before the court is not 
ruling
  > on the legality of slavery _itself_. _Supporting_ the pro-slavery 
ction?
True.  It was not ruling on slavery, although it was ruling on issues
that affected slavery.
  > No doubt. But that (to my way of thinking) is not the same as ruling on 
the
  > Constitutional legality of slavery itself. Other issues such as the death
  > penalty, abortion, etc. fall into the same kind of category. The SC rules
  > (at least they have in the past) whether or not state laws, government 
fund
  > types of executions, etc. are "legal". The SC in many, many cases does 
ot
  > come right out and say "such and suchs' is legal, from a _federal_
  > perspective, under the Constitution.
That's true.  Often, Supreme Court rulings have only limited
applicability, because they define their vierdict in very narrow terms,
often because of the silence of the constitution, I suppose.
JC> Today, we could put issues such as abortion and the death penalty in the
  > same category. From time to time various SCs have supported (or not
  > supported) both sides of those issues. But there are still no _absolutes_
  > in the Constitution for either of those. It takes the passage of 
amendments
  > and ratification of the states to make those "absolutes" under the
  > Constitution.
And I think we are a long way from any such amendment.  There just isn't
that much agreement on the issues right now.  And, like slavery, the
folks on each side of the issue are ususally so emotionally attached to
their veiwpoint that they can't even *hear* the other side.
                            Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ What do you mean my birth certificate expired?
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.7 
---------------