President James Buchanan had been in office only two days when the Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) decision was handed down on March 6, 1857.
Franklin Pierce was in office while the case was before the Court; however, Buchanan had already been elected and was pressuring the Court to render a decision that would overturn the Kansas-Nebraska Act and put an end to the "slavery question."
Buchanan personally lobbied Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a fellow Pennsylvanian, to vote against Scott. Grier and a second Northerner, New York Justice Samuel Nelson, agreed to support Taney. Initially, five justices (a simple majority) planned to rule in Scott's favor; however, the final vote was 7-2 for Sanford. Justice Benjamin Curtis resigned from the Court in disgust when they upheld slavery as constitutional.
Case Citation:
Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
President James Buchanan had been in office only two days when the Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) decision was handed down on March 6, 1857.
Franklin Pierce was in office while the case was before the Court; however, Buchanan had already been elected and was pressuring the Court to render a decision that would overturn the Kansas-Nebraska Act and put an end to the "slavery question."
Buchanan personally lobbied Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a fellow Pennsylvanian, to vote against Scott. Grier and a second Northerner, New York Justice Samuel Nelson, agreed to support Taney. Initially, five justices (a simple majority) planned to rule in Scott's favor; however, the final vote was 7-2 for Sanford. Justice Benjamin Curtis resigned from the Court in disgust when they upheld slavery as constitutional.
Case Citation:
Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)
The Chief Justice, Roger Taney.
No. The Supreme Court has the ability to declare something unconstitutional or not. If they have declared something unconstitutional then there is nothing the president can do about it.
defiant.
Jackson refused to obey the court's ruling
The Chief Justice was Roger Taney - ironically a one-time Abolitionist.
Reagon was the first president to appoint a woman to the supreme court
A U. S. president cannot reverse a U. S. Supreme Court decision or the decision of the Supreme Court of any state or territory.
The president does not have any power over the decisions of the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court itself can overturn a supreme court decision.
In most cases a Supreme Court decision is permanent. The current Supreme Court can change the decision of a previous Supreme Court.
no... Once the U. S. Supreme Court makes a decision in the interpretation of a law or a part of the Constitution, a precedent is set, and their decision holds the same weight as the original law. The President can no more overturn a Supreme Court decision than he/she can make a new law without Congress. The President can, however, sign into law a bill that has passed both houses of Congress that repeals or modifies a law or Constitutional clause on which a Supreme Court decision has been rendered, thereby, in effect, overriding the Supreme Court.
This Court decision limits the president's power to impound funds.
No. The Supreme Court has the ability to declare something unconstitutional or not. If they have declared something unconstitutional then there is nothing the president can do about it.
The Dred Scott decision was handed down soon after Buchanan took office in1857.
The President (Executive Branch) doesn't have the authority to reverse a Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) decision because such action would violate the separation of powers established by the Constitution. If the President had that kind of "veto authority" over a Supreme Court decision he (or she) would effectively control two branches of the government and would be vested with too much power.
He can't. They have the final say in an issue.
It's divided between the President (Obama), the Congress, and the Supreme Court.
The judicial branch also known as the Supreme Court.
defiant.