Not true. The Supreme Court has reversed many of its earlier decisions.
No. Only the President of the United States, or the Vice-President, if the President is incapacitated, has the Constitutional authority to issue "executive orders." The President is the head of the Executive branch of government.
FALSE! The Supreme Court has never upheld automatic expatration.
AnswerIn the event of tie votes by the Supreme Court, the lower court's ruling in the case being considered is upheld without comment. In other words, the Supreme Court issues no permanent decision on the laws involved in the case.Optionally, the Court may choose to hear reargument on the case, with the addition of the justice or justices who weren't present during the original oral arguments.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
it was when Mexicans never gained rights because there Mexican.
No, states are not obligated to follow other states legal decisions; however, the decisions may carry persuasive weight with the court, assuming (for example) the Iowa Supreme Court ruling doesn't violate the Illinois state constitution or statutes.If Iowa is is the only other state court system that has addressed this PARTICULAR issue then the decision of Iowa's Supreme Court can be used as "precedent" for the Illinois court to follow. If there are other states that have addressed this PARTICULAR issue and they have either agreed with, or disagreed with, the Iowa court's findings, those decisions should be also be taken into account when the Illinois court considers the issue.
false
It originated the concept that former slaves, or descendants of slaves, could never be citizens and therefore couldn't bring cases before the court.
No. Only the President of the United States, or the Vice-President, if the President is incapacitated, has the Constitutional authority to issue "executive orders." The President is the head of the Executive branch of government.
The most significant part of the US Supreme Court's ruling on the Dred Scott case was actually two-fold. The Court by a 7-2 decision ruled that slavery was legal and that Blacks could never be US citizens because they were not white. Their race made it impossible for them to be US citizens.
FALSE! The Supreme Court has never upheld automatic expatration.
In the 1857 US Supreme Court decision that involved the Dredd Scott case, the Court stated the slaves were property and, also, they could never be US citizens. This pro-slavery decision would later require an amendment to the US Constitution in order to abolish slavery.
AnswerIn the event of tie votes by the Supreme Court, the lower court's ruling in the case being considered is upheld without comment. In other words, the Supreme Court issues no permanent decision on the laws involved in the case.Optionally, the Court may choose to hear reargument on the case, with the addition of the justice or justices who weren't present during the original oral arguments.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
The US Supreme Court decision on the Dred Scott case affirmed that slaves were property. The court also ruled that Blacks could never be US Citizens. It took several Constitutional amendments to ensure that Blacks and other minorities had the same rights as white people. The 13th amendment abolished slavery totally.
ninth amendment
Dred Scott was an African American man born into slavery in 1799. He unsuccessfully sued for his freedom in the landmark Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. The Supreme Court's decision in the case declared that African Americans, whether slave or free, were not U.S. citizens and could not sue in federal court. The ruling further exacerbated tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War. Dred Scott died just a year after the Supreme Court decision, never gaining his freedom.
it was when Mexicans never gained rights because there Mexican.
Yep. The Dred Scott decision was all about how Dred Scott went with his slave owner up to a "free state" and stayed long enough to, technically, be free. He turned this into a court case and took it to the Supreme Court. They decided that he could never become a citizen because of his race, and could, therefore, never sue in court. The court justices thought in theory that slavery was protected by the constitution. (which it is absolutely not!) I hope this clears it up :]