Friday, September 11, 2015

Mike Huckabee and His Wrongness



On September 10, 2015 presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee announced that the Supreme Court decision in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case is the law of the land.  This announcement was met with raucous laughter from historians, anyone with a basic understanding of law, and anyone that managed to stay awake during a high school civics class. 
If you aren’t one of those people, that’s okay.  I am, and I’m going to tell you what this is all about and why Mike Huckabee is wrong. 

Dred Scott

Dred Scott was a black slave born sometime around 1800 in Virginia.  Mr Scott lived most of his life in the slave system of the American South, predominantly Virginia and Alabama.  However, when ownership of Mr Scott was transferred upon his original owner’s death (yes, that’s a thing that happened), he was taken for a period of years to Illinois and then to Wisconsin (1).   

This was in the 1830s, a time that can best be described as the “let’s not talk about this slavery thing because it makes people fight” years.  See, despite what many of us are led to believe, the Civil War didn’t just erupt one day out of nowhere after some guy decided slavery was a bad idea.  It was instead the product of decades of infighting between economies based on slave labor and the plantation system and those that were not.  Slavery was very much a salient moral issue for a large portion of the population at the time but, more importantly in this context, it was an economic and a political issue.  Slave economies could not run without slaves.  Further, slaves were counted as a fraction of a person for purposes of population calculation, and the reason for this was that population determined representation in the House of Representatives (2).  So the issue transcended the moral accountability that is often rightly emphasized, but wrongly over-emphasized, in many Civil War discussions.

So, due to this delicate balancing act we were trying to maintain to keep us out of war over the issue of slavery, a series of convoluted and often patently ridiculous sounding laws were passed in an attempt to appease whichever side was yelling louder at the time.  One of those laws dictated that slaves that spent a specific period of time in free territory were allowed to make a legal case for their own freedom.  Now, Dred Scott certainly met the qualifications under this law at the time that he was in Illinois and Wisconsin (which was still a territory, FYI), however he did not, for reasons unknown, make that case at the time.  Eventually, he was moved back south with his master and it was at this time, in 1847, that he made the claim that he should be free based on his time in free lands.  No one knows for sure why he waited, however, the general theory is that he wasn’t aware of the law (1).  Which isn’t hard to believe assuming most slaves weren’t allowed to learn to read, let alone be brought up to date on their own legal standing given their territory of residency. 

The 1847 case resulted in a loss for Scott on a paperwork technicality, however, in 1850 the Missouri Supreme Court ordered the case to be retried and the St Louis circuit court found in Scott’s favor.  In 1852 the Missouri Supreme Court retried the case yet again and reversed that decision, finding that Scott was still legally a slave.  This sounds silly and like Missouri just can’t get its collective shit together, but in all honesty it’s not surprising considering the competing influences in the nation as a whole and Missouri specifically regarding the status of slaves, the validity of laws regarding slaves in free states, etc.  

The Case and “The Law of The Land”

So since Missouri couldn’t get its collective shit together considering the competing influences in that state regarding slavery, the Supreme Court stepped in in 1856.  Well, that’s not necessarily true.  The Supreme Court doesn’t just “step in” because people elsewhere can’t get their shit together (ie: any southern state regarding anything ever).  So let’s talk about the Supreme Court for a second just in case, like the former governor of Arkansas (and probably Alaska), you aren’t really up on how it works: 

                The Supreme Court was established in the United States in Article III of the US Constitution (3).  However, like many things the founding fathers did, the wording used to establish said court was frustratingly vague (for other examples of this see: Second Amendment).  So the court itself was established, but we didn’t really know what to do with it until 1803 with the case of Marbury v. Madison (4).  This case is a landmark piece of legislation in the US and a lot of people honestly aren’t real up on what it was or why it was.  The circumstances surrounded an incoming president not honoring the appointment of an outgoing president and, honestly, doesn’t really matter.  No one cares about Marbury or whether or not he retained his job.  We just don’t.  Deal with it, Marbury.  Anyway, what is important about this case is that it established the concept of Judicial Review.  

Judicial Review=the power of a federal court to void an act of Congress that does not mesh with the Constitution. 

So what this did, in essence, was establish that the Supreme Court was a branch of government equal to the Congress and the Executive (nb: executive=president, for any purpose a normal person would actually need it for).  So today we have a Supreme Court that is capable of voiding laws, but—and here’s the important part—one that is also capable of MAKING laws.  See, since this is a separate and equal branch of government, Supreme Court decisions carry the weight of law, thus making them the “law of the land” as literally everyone is fond of calling it now for some fucking reason I can’t put my finger on.  

So why do we care?  

Dred Scott went before the Supreme Court in 1856 and presented his case for freedom.  In 1857 the Court decided that Scott was not entitled to his freedom due to his time spent in free territory and the reason for this is that slaves are not citizens and, therefore, could not sue in a federal court for anything, much less their freedom (5).  

Yes.  If you’re paying attention, yes.  In 1857 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that slaves are not citizens.  

Please take this moment to do what you need to do to wrap your head around this. 

Sometimes we fuck up.  Sometimes we fuck up royally.  This was one of those times. 

Why Mike Huckabee brought it up on a radio show

If by now you have not heard of Kim Davis I have no idea how you’re reading this because obviously you have no access to the internet.  But, I will humor you.  After the 2015 ruling of the Supreme Court that all states must allow the gays to marry a Kentucky clerk went rogue and fucking refused to issue marriage licenses to gay people.  This clerk was Kim Davis.  Some people love her (Mike Huckabee) for standing up for her religious principles.  Others hate her, calling her a bigoted douche that isn’t doing her job.  Regardless of where you stand, we know where Mike Huckabee stands—staunchly on the side of Kim Davis.  So, on Thursday September 10, 2015 when asked to defend this position on a radio show, the host of which very rightly pointed out that gay marriage was the “law of the land” (seriously, we need a new term), Mike Huckabee countered with a point involving the Dred Scott case.  He stated that: 

“the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?” (6)

Why Mike Huckabee is Wrong

The Dred Scott decision is not the “law of the land”.  It WAS the “law of the land”.  Until 1868 and the passage of the 14th amendment.  The 14th amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” (7).  Which included slaves.  

So how does this happen?  Well, remember when I told you, dear reader, that the Supreme Court could void acts of Congress if they were unconstitutional?  Well, that doesn’t make the Supreme Court King Shit on Turd Mountain, necessarily.   The Congress can void acts of the Supreme Court.  *Note to anyone reading this with a firm grasp of constitutional law: I’m purposely putting this in overly simplistic terms because 1.) this blog is already too fucking long and 2.) legal jargon gives me a fucking headache*.  Congress can do this by amending the Constitution. 

Essentially, an amendment is a change to the basic foundation of our government and this has happened 27 times in the history of the United States and is done in one of two ways.  Either, 1.) a constitutional convention is called ala 1787, or 2.) an amendment is proposed in the House of Representatives and wins by a 2/3s majority and then does the same in the Senate.  Never in the history of the United States has an amendment been passed via option 1 (8).  So, after the Civil War three amendments were passed via option 2:  the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.  When these passed, laws that were in place that were in opposition to them, regardless of who they were established by, were essentially void.  

Thus, this is why Mike Huckabee is wrong.  The 1856 Supreme Court decision was reversed in 1868 by the 14th amendment. 

You’re welcome. 

My apologies to Mr Huckabee.  

AND gravy, even....

Also, my apologies to Ms Palin.  That jab was unnecessary and unfair.  However, I stand by its general premise. 

Also, apologies to anyone that actually pays attention to the citations in this blog, as I totally made up the citation style as I went along because I honestly fucking hate citing sources, though I do completely understand that just taking my word for shit is a dangerous thing so I have to back my shit up. 



1.       Africans in America.  Dred Scott’s fight for freedom.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html 
2.    The Heritage Foundation.  2012.  Three-Fifths Clause. http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/1/essays/6/three-fifths-clause 
3.       The National Archives. The Charters of Freedom. Constitution of the United States. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html 
4.       PBS.  2007. The Court and Democracy. Marbury v. Madison (1803). http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_marbury.html 
5.       Library of Congress.  2015.  Dred Scott v. Sanford. http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DredScott.html 
6.       Benen, Steve.  2015.  Huckabee: Dred Scott still ‘law of the land’. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/huckabee-dred-scott-still-the-law-the-land 
7.      Library of Congress. 2015. 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html 
8.       National Archives. The Constitutional Amendment Process. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ 

No comments:

Post a Comment