Dred Scott's attorney's appealed his case to the US Supreme Court on a writ of error. The first issue the Court had to determine was whether the Circuit Court (and by extension, the US Supreme Court) had jurisdiction (authority) to hear the case. The actual questions posed:
Case Citation:
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)
His own freedom - on the basis that he had once lived on free soil. Local judges had never been faced with a retrospective claim of this sort, and that is why it reached the Supreme Court.
The mountain climber faced a steep ascent to the summit. His ascent to the Supreme Court was not without controversy.
Clarence Thomas
The two questions before the Supreme Court related to the writ of error against the Circuit Court's earlier appellate decision in the case:Had the Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and determine the case between these parties?If it had jurisdiction, is the judgment it has given erroneous or not?Taney summarized the substance of the case:"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. "More InformationIt concerned the well-accepted rule of 'Once free, always free' about slaves who had applied for their freedom when they were on free soil - where it would automatically have been granted.Dred Scott's master was an army officer who had been posted to free soil for some years, and taken his slave with him, but Scott had not applied for his freedom at that time.Later, his master was posted back to slave soil (also taking his slave with him), and then died, bequeathing Scott in his will to his wife's family.Scott then tried to sue for his freedom retrospectively, but the local judges had never dealt with this situation, and it was referred to the Supreme Court, with the serious consequences that we all know.Case Citation:Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)
On two occasions the US Supreme Court was faced with a decision on the pocket veto. One was made during the President Herbert Hoover administration in 1929, and the second time was in the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration in 1938.
The right of a man to own property - including slaves - as laid down in the Constitution. And the 'Once free, always free' provision about slaves who lived in a free state. Scott had been taken by his master to a free state, where he could have claimed his freedom automatically. But he left it till he was back in a slave-state, and the local courts had never been faced with this situation before. That is why it reached the Supreme Court.
Unanswerable question. The time for whatever charge you are faced with, plus the judge may(probably?) add something for contempt of court. PLUS - consider this question - after three FTA's are you now considered a FUGITIVE?
in the mid-1930's, Franklin Roosevelt faced criticism from both right and left. At the same time, the supreme court struck the first new deal down as unconstitutional.
Robert scott faced things like blizards being stuck in pack ice and not enough warm clothing
Some obstacles faced by Robert Falcon Scott during his expedition to the South Pole included harsh weather conditions, extreme cold, inadequate equipment, limited food supplies, and tough terrain. Additionally, his team faced physical and mental strain as they pushed towards their goal.
Sandra Day OÕConner was the first woman to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court. She was appointed in 1981. She has overcome career struggles and criticism to be the first female Justice.
There was very little controversy surrounding Justice Scalia's nomination to the US Supreme Court, in part because the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's elevation from Associate Justice was a cause of concern for liberals and overshadowed any objections they may have had about Scalia's conservatism. In fact, Scalia had bi-partisan support, and was confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote of 98-0.