#Roger B. Taney

[cyborgpain]

FRFR

OKAY YOU ALL TALK ABOUT THE COLD WAR, SURE

BUT WHAT ABOUT

THE HOT WAR

WHICH IS WHAT I CALL THE BANK WAR COS HOT PEOPLE

Okay I’m not attracted to Biddle, but I had to include him cos Bank War but also he balances the photoset. 

Obvious the war was more than Clay & Biddle vs. Jackson & Taney but whatever I do what I want. 

Sorry. I had that “Cold War Hot War” idea in my head and just wanted to do something about it before I lost it. 

NO BUT SERIOUSLY READ UP ON THE BANK WAR IT’S BIG AND COMPLICATED AND HEATED AND INTERESTING WOW I know who’s side I’m on but yeah. 

[cartermagazine]

Today In History

Dred Scott was born into slavery in Southampton, Virginia, around 1795, the property of the Peter Blow family. He was given the name “Sam” but took the name of his older brother, Dred, when the latter died.

In 1836, Scott who was approximately 41, married a teenaged slave, Harriett Robinson, at Fort Snelling who was owned by another U.S. Army officer, Major Lawrence Taliaferro of Virginia. Scott and Robinson gave birth to their first child, Eliza, in 1838 and a second daughter, Lizzie, in 1840, and their two children were born free.

In 1843, Emerson died and left his estate to his widow, Irene Sanford Emerson. When Scott offered to purchase his freedom for $300 in 1846, Emerson refused his offer. He then obtained the assistance of two St. Louis attorneys who helped him to sue for his freedom. His 1846 lawsuit was filed in the St. Louis Circuit Court and went to trial in 1847.

Scott lost this case, but later that year he won a second trail. By this point Scott received financial support and legal representation from the sons of Peter Blow, his former owner, who had become anti-slavery advocates, Irene Sanford Emerson’s brother, John Sanford, and her second husband, Dr. C.C. Chaffee, a Massachusetts abolitionist. To all of them the Scott case as an important challenge to slavery.

On March 6, 1857, the United States Supreme Court finally ruled in Dred Scott v Sandford [Sanford was misspelled by a court clerk]. In a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the majority of justices said that Scott and all slaves and free blacks were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing in the courts. The backlash to this decision strengthened the abolitionist movement and further divided the North and South, leading four years later to the U.S. Civil War.

After he was freed, Dred Scott went to work as a porter in the St. Louis area. He died from tuberculosis in September 1858. Harriett Scott died eighteen years later on June 17, 1876.

CARTER™️ Magazine

[deadpresidents]

Has any president ever not been given the oath of office by the chief justice of the supreme court

Yes. The Constitution does not specify who must administer the oath of office to the President and government officials who are required to swear (or affirm) an oath can essentially be sworn in by any federal or state judge or even a notary public.

The oath of office has been administered eight times by someone other than the Chief Justice of the United States -- usually when a Vice President has assumed office upon a President's death and it was necessary to quickly locate somebody who could administer the oath. George Washington was also sworn in by someone other than the Chief Justice at both of his inaugurations. In fact, not only was there no Chief Justice at the time of Washington's first inauguration but there was literally no federal judiciary (and, obviously, no federal judges). The Judiciary Act establishing the Supreme Court wasn't enacted until September 1789 -- almost five months into President Washington's first term -- and that's when the first members of the Supreme Court were nominated and confirmed.

Of course, the Chief Justice of the United States has been the person swearing in the President the vast majority of the time. John Marshall, the longest-serving Chief Justice in American history (1801-1835), administered the oath of office more times than anyone else -- nine times to five different Presidents. However, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (served from 1836-1864) administered the oath to more individual Presidents than anyone else -- seven times to seven different Presidents. The nation's first two Chief Justices -- John Jay (1789-1795) and John Rutledge (August-December 1795) -- are the only two Chiefs who never administered the oath to a President.

Here is the list of Presidential Inaugurations not conducted by the Chief Justice of the United States along with the person who administered the oath of office: •GEORGE WASHINGTON's 1st Inauguration (April 30, 1789): Robert Livingston, Chancellor of New York (The Chancellor of New York was the presiding judge of the New York Court of Chancery, the highest court in New York State from 1701-1847) •GEORGE WASHINGTON's 2nd Inauguration (March 4, 1793): William Cushing, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court •JOHN TYLER's Inauguration (April 4, 1841): William Cranch, Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia (Tyler assumed office upon the death of President William Henry Harrison. Interestingly, Cranch was the nephew of John and Abigail Adams.) •MILLARD FILLMORE's Inauguration (July 9, 1850): William Cranch, Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia (Fillmore assumed office upon the death of President Taylor.) •CHESTER A. ARTHUR's Inauguration (September 20, 1881): John R. Brady, Justice of the New York State Supreme Court (Arthur assumed office upon the death of President Garfield. Brady was the first judge that could be tracked down to administer the oath at Arthur's home in New York City after notification of Garfield's death arrived shortly after midnight on Sept. 20, 1881. After returning to Washington, D.C. on September 22, 1881, Arthur was administered the oath of office again in a formal ceremony by Chief Justice Morrison Waite.) •THEODORE ROOSEVELT's 1st Inauguration (September 14, 1901): John R. Hazel, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Roosevelt assumed office upon the death of President McKinley.) •CALVIN COOLIDGE's 1st Inauguration (August 3, 1923): John Calvin Coolidge Sr., Justice of the Peace and Notary Public in Plymouth, Vermont (Coolidge assumed office upon the death of President Harding. Coolidge was staying at his father's home in Vermont when he was notified shortly after midnight on August 3, 1923 that President Harding had died a few hours earlier in San Francisco. Since Coolidge's father was a Notary Public, he administered the oath of office to his son in the sitting room of the family home. After being sworn in by his father, President Coolidge promptly went back to sleep.) •LYNDON B. JOHNSON's 1st Inauguration (November 22, 1963): Sarah T. Hughes, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Johnson assumed office upon the death of President Kennedy. Johnson was in Dallas with Kennedy when the President was assassinated, and he was sworn in as President aboard Air Force One on the airport tarmac of Love Field before leaving Texas to return to Washington with Kennedy's body.)

[abqbox]

Sam LoPresti made NHL history on March 4 in a game against the Boston Bruins when he faced a league record 83 shots in regulation (a 2-3 loss). He then left the NHL to join the United States Navy during the Second World War, theorizing that "it was safer to face Nazi U-boats in the North Atlantic than vulcanized rubber in North America."

LoPresti served aboard the SS Roger B. Taney. The ship was torpedoed and sunk during an Atlantic crossing in February 1943. LoPresti was thought to be the first casualty among American professional athletes in the conflict. But as the Roger B. Taney sank, LoPresti abandoned the ship.

He was one of 26 (or 20, reports vary) men who took refuge in a lifeboat with minimal water or food supplies. After 42 days, traveling nearly 2,500 miles southwest, they were found and rescued off the coast of Brazil. LoPresti was credited with saving the men's lives by catching the only real food they had during their entire ordeal.

After noticing dolphins swimming around their boat, LoPresti improvised a weapon by lashing a sheath knife to a boat hook. He plunged into the ocean, catching a 35-pound dolphin. They hauled it into the boat, drank its blood, and cooked the meat in a metal bucket with rags and kerosene.

Because goalies are always saving everyone else's butts, it's just what they do.

[lil-als]

Random people hunger games! Featuring historical figures, Wild Kratts, politicians, and me.

Stephen Douglas being Stephen Douglas. Dang it Kerry

Chris being Chris. Booth being evil. Nixon being relatable. AND IVE GOT A FIRE :D

Charles Sumner and George W. Bush do the right thing. I sleep with Clay and Gore. AND WHO THE FUCK GAVE CHENEY AN EXPLOSIVE?

Caviva! Yay!

Zach and Aviva truce? Never thought I’d see the day. Bernie Sanders x Charles Sumner? And same, Dubya.

Taney drowns me… thinking I was an animal that could breathe underwater? Also dammit Sumner

GOOD JOB BERNIE AND ZACH. Also Booth x Chris?

AGAIN BOOTH X CHRIS. Also Zach being cute

Yay! Chris defeats his enemy and also Roger B. Taney.

NOOOOOOO!

Booth won the hunger games

[antebellumite]

Antebellum Miscellaneous Casting 2/?

Before i continue i feel like it needs to be said that i actually dont know what any of these peoples acting styles are like, so this is 90% vibes 7% faceclaim and 3% concentration of will, so:

Matthew Daddario as Alexander Hamilton Jr.

Rebecca Hall as Sarah Polk

Emily Blunt as Lucretia Clay

Evan Rachel Wood as Margaret Eaton

Natalie Dormer as Floride Calhoun

Ben Barnes as Galusha Grow

Adam Driver as Roger B. Taney

Tom Cruise as John J. Crittenden

Luke Evans as Lawrence Keitts

Benedict Cumberbatch as Jefferson Davis

Sophie Nelisse as Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Jennifer Lawrence as Varina Davis

Chris Pratt as Horace Greeley

Jared Padalecki as Anson Burlingame

and

Mitt Romney as Franklin Pierce

[readyforevolution]

DRED SCOTT DECISION

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens.

In 1857, the U. S. Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether Scott, an African American man born into slavery, should be granted his freedom. The justices not only denied Scott’s request, but also took the opportunity to send a chilling message to all African Americans, free and enslaved, that reverberates to this day.

The court held that as members of an inferior race, African Americans were not citizens at all — and, as such, did not even have legal standing to sue. African Americans, as Chief Justice Roger Taney so decisively determined, had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The Dred Scott decision laid the legal foundation of White Supremacy in America by America’s highest court; SCOTUS which is an acronym for Supreme Colonizers Of The United States. The insidious and poisonous doctrine of White Supremacy is imbued in the social-political-economic structures of American society.

Roger B. Taney

Former Chief Justice of the United States is pictured above

[recoveredzamboni]

This memorial day, I salute, Sam LoPresti, who left the NHL during WWII to join the US Navy on SS Roger B. Taney. The ship was torpedoed & sunk in '43; LoPresti was one of 29 sailors who survived 42 days lost @ sea in a lifeboat. They were rescued off the coast of Brazil.  LoPresti was credited with saving the lives of his shipmates. How? He killed a dolphin with a knife, which was pretty much the only food they had during their ordeal. That's a goalie I'd back check a little harder for

[keyamsha]

Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World

The stage was set for the “Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World” in 1857. That was when the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sanford. Taney in regard to the ENTIRE AFRICAN RACE as relates to the United States Constitution states: They had for more than a…

[dixiedrudge]

Lincoln Goes Nuts - Today In Southern History

27 May 1863   On this date in 1863… An enraged Abraham Lincoln ordered the arrest of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney after Taney issued ex parte Merryman to challenge the authority of the president and the military to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland. Other Years: 1607 – Virginia settles fought their first significant battle against Indians of the Powhattan…

[davidrivkin]

What's At Stake in the Trump Immunity Case

By David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Elizabeth Price Foley

April 24, 2024, in the Wall Street Journal

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Thursday in Trump v. U.S., in which Donald Trump argues that the Constitution precludes his prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. Mr. Trump’s detractors insist that recognizing presidential immunity would put him above the law. They’re wrong. Immunity for official actions is a necessary part of the constitutional structure, and criminal prosecution isn’t the only way to hold a president accountable for unlawful official acts.

Because no previous president ever faced criminal charges, the question before the justices is novel. But the high court has addressed the unique constitutionally driven relationship between the presidency and the courts. In Kendall v. U.S. ex rel. Stokes (1838), it declared: “The executive power is vested in a President; and as far as his powers are derived from the constitution, he is beyond the reach of any other department, except in the mode prescribed by the constitution through the impeaching power.”

Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) dealt with the question of when statutes enacted by Congress apply to the president. The ruling noted that “the President is not explicitly excluded” from the Administrative Procedure Act, “but he is not explicitly included, either.” Under such circumstances, “out of respect for the separation of powers and the unique constitutional position of the President . . . textual silence is not enough to subject the President to the provisions.”

More fundamentally, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the court held that separation of powers demands absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for acts falling within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities. Absolute immunity is necessary because the president “occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme,” and the specter of litigation “could distract a President from his public duties.” That applies with even greater force to the threat of criminal prosecution.

Special counsel Jack Smith argues that “no President need be chilled in fulfilling his responsibilities” because there are “strong institutional checks to ensure evenhanded and impartial enforcement of the law,” including grand jury indictment, due process and the government’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if the prospect of conviction is remote, the threat of prosecution impairs the presidency.

Further, the most important institutional check, the norm against politicized prosecutions, has so broken down that not only Mr. Smith but district attorneys in New York and Atlanta have rushed to bring Mr. Trump to court. Imagine how other presidents might have fared if they had to worry about prosecution for official acts:

• Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without congressional authorization. In Ex Parte Merryman (1861), Chief Justice Roger Taney, acting as a circuit judge, held that the power to suspend habeas lies solely with Congress. Lincoln ignored Taney’s ruling and continued his suspension of habeas until the end of the Civil War. No one suggested that Lincoln be prosecuted for false imprisonment, false arrest or kidnapping.

• Harry S. Truman seized domestic steel plants during the Korean War, violating statutes that authorized the president to seize private property only in narrow circumstances. The Supreme Court declared his actions unconstitutional in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). But no federal prosecutors suggested they could prosecute him for “conspiracy against rights,” or “conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States,” the charges Mr. Smith has brought against Mr. Trump.

• Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all unilaterally ordered military actions as commander in chief. Critics accused them of usurping Congress’s power to declare war, but nobody seriously suggested that they be prosecuted for murder, torture, war crimes or misappropriation of government resources.

The president isn’t the only official to enjoy immunity for official acts. In Yaselli v. Goff (1927), the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s conclusion that federal prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil liability because the “public interest requires that persons occupying such important positions . . . should speak and act freely and fearlessly in the discharge of their important official functions.” In Kalina v. Fletcher (1997), the justices held that even under Section 1983—a civil-rights law authorizing lawsuits against state officials who violate federal constitutional rights—prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for acts undertaken in their “role as an advocate.” This is because that role is unique to prosecutors, and the public’s interest “in protecting the proper functioning of the office, rather than the interest in protecting its occupant, . . . is of primary importance.”

The court reached the same conclusion about judges in Pierson v. Ray (1967), which held that Section 1983 didn’t abrogate judges’ absolute immunity for “acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction,” because such immunity is “for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.”

In Gravel v. U.S. (1972), the justices held that the Speech and Debate Clause extends absolute immunity to members of Congress and their aides for official actions. This is to protect a member of “a co-equal branch of the government” from “executive and judicial oversight that realistically threatens to control his conduct as a legislator.”

Like prosecutors, judges and congressmen, a president threatened with prosecutions for official acts couldn’t exercise his duties with full vigor. Unlike those other officials, the president is the singular head of a branch of government, making his ability to exercise his powers all the more essential.

That leaves the question of whether the actions for which Mr. Trump was charged were official or, as Mr. Smith asserts, private. In McDonnell v. U.S. (2016) the court held that an “official act” is an action on any matter that is “pending . . . before a public official,” and includes the president’s “using his official position to exert pressure on another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an ‘official act’ of another official.”

Mr. Trump acknowledges that “no court has yet addressed the application of immunity to the alleged facts of the case.” The justices should draw a line and extend absolute criminal immunity to actions within the outer perimeter of the president’s duties. Then it would be for the lower courts to decide on which side of the line these actions fall.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-at-stake-in-the-trump-immunity-case-president-supreme-court-1f00dc9c?st=na9o2hx7z29i6lx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[bobmccullochny]

History

March 17

March 17th - Celebrated as Saint Patrick's Day commemorating the patron saint of Ireland.

March 17, 1776 - Early in the American Revolutionary War the British completed their evacuation of Boston following a successful siege conducted by Patriots. The event is still commemorated in Boston as Evacuation Day.

Birthday - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney (1777-1864) was born in Calvert County, Maryland. He became the 5th Chief Justice in 1836, best known for the Dred Scott decision.

[lboogie1906]

In a landmark case, the SCOTUS decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the US, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Scott’s temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, as the court ruled this to have been unconstitutional, as it would “improperly deprive Scott’s owner of his legal property”.

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion. Taney ruled, with 3 major issues:

Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the US, according to the Constitution.

The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer either freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to non-white individuals.

The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act, since the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to non-white persons in the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[runedscope]

I'll know it when i see it standard hits different when the person knowing and seeing is chief justice roger b taney

[contoveros]

Supreme Court guts a more perfect union

Our Supreme Court is the worst judicial tribunal since the United States’ highest judiciary ruled in 1856 that blacks were not and could not be citizens. Yes, Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney has gone down in history for his ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford. It stated that a black man had no rights under the Constitution and that the Founders’ words in the Declaration of Independence,…

[lil-als]

Secretary of the Treasury Roger B. Taney: we did it sir, we killed the bank. Wait sir, why are you covered in blood? This was a political battle?

Andrew Jackson:  yes, we did Rog! Wait, this was all political? Hahahahahah fuck