answersLogoWhite

0

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about American Government
Related Questions

Who ruled that congress could not ban slavery in the territories?

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in Scott v. Sandford,(1857)


Who ruled the congress could not ban slavery in the territories?

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in Scott v. Sandford,(1857)


What was the legal impact of Dred Scott v. Sandford on the issue of slavery in the territories?

The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, did not have rights as citizens, and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories. This decision further polarized the nation on the issue of slavery and heightened tensions leading up to the Civil War.


What law founded to be unconstitutional in the dred scott decision?

The law that was found to be unconstitutional in the Dred Scott decision was the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which banned slavery in certain territories. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in these territories, as it violated the constitutional rights of slaveholders.


What law was found to be unconstitutional in the dred Scott desicion?

The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which designated certain territories as free and slave states, was found to be unconstitutional in the Dred Scott decision. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories.


What did the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case say about the expansion of slavery into the territories and the rights of slaves in the US?

The Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case declared that slaves were not citizens, so they had no rights under the Constitution and no legal standing in court. It also ruled that Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories, essentially allowing for the expansion of slavery into new regions.


Which court case ruled that no African American could claim US citizenship and that the US Congress could not prohibit slavery?

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1857, ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not claim US citizenship. The Court also held that the US Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories, ultimately heightening tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the lead-up to the Civil War.


What law was founf to be unconstitutional in the dred scott decision?

The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. The Court ruled that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories, as it violated the property rights of slave owners guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.


Which two groups were involved in the confrontation known as Bleeding Kansas?

Before the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no right to interfere with slavery, the Congress had passed in 1854 the Kansas Nebraska Act. This act allowed people in the two territories to vote as to whether the "to be" States would be free ones or slave States. This led to conflict and bloodshed between pro & anti slavery groups. As an aside, the future Harpers Ferry raider fought for anti slavery in Kansas. The two forces caused the label of Bleeding Kansas used to describe the situation there.


According to the Dred Scott decision slaves were?

According to the Dred Scott decision, slaves were considered property rather than citizens and did not have the right to sue in federal court. It also ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, furthering tensions over the issue of slavery in the United States.


What territories are ruled by kings?

ingland


Why did the supreme court decision in dred Scott v sanford outrage northerners?

The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford outraged Northerners because it ruled that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens and that Congress could not ban slavery in the territories. This decision was seen as a blow to the abolitionist movement and reinforced the perception that the federal government was siding with pro-slavery interests.