Talk:Dred Scott v. Sandford
The discussion in this article has no mention of what I consider to be the most important aspect of this extremely famous case, to wit, its implications for that essential feature of American jurispridence, the issue of States' Rights.
In Dredd Scott, the SCOTUS held that states could continue to enforce their own laws on personal property without running afoul of centralized, big-government attempots to interfere. This angered the Washington Liberal Elite so much that it eventually precipitated the Civil War.
I have some excellent references here and could write up a few paragraphs abnout the detaukls of this matter if nobody objects. —Asphalt P. Stanky 16:29, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Please cut this page down
This is apparently the second-longest page on Conservapedia, and appears needlessly detailed. Could someone who knows about the subject cut it down a bit?--CPalmer 11:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
- On second thoughts, I've just deleted the transcript. The summary that remains is pretty informative as it is.--CPalmer 12:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
- That's available here, so we could include that link. The transcript is so long it gives warning messages when you edit it, so I would have thought it should be taken out of Conservapedia itself.--CPalmer 12:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
The page's name is wrong
The case is Scott v. Sandford, not Sanford. I apparently cannot edit the title, so would someone with the necessary permissions please correct it? Lawstudent 14:40, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
- Apparently, you are correct here, but how did this court document get named 'Sandford" (with a "D"), when the man's name is "John F. A. Sanford"? Karajou 14:49, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
- I think the answer is just a simple typo error on a clerk's part when the case was originally filed. The article is now under a correct title. Karajou 15:01, 15 June 2011 (EDT)