Dred Scott II
Keyes to interpretation
Mark Kleiman cites Brad sortof citing me. Kleiman has a very good point (although he inexcusably fails to mention my name which he has actually spelled correctly once).

To recap, Bush said the Dred Scott decision was not only evil but also activist, because, he claims, the constitution guaranteed equality. Brad interpreted this as the theory that the 13th amendment had been ratified by 1857. I interpreted this as the theory that the 14th amendment had been rativied by 1857. Mark Kleiman guesses that Bush mixed up the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I now think that Kleiman is right. Kleiman also argues that the decision was activist, since it was not necessary to create such a broad precedent in order to apply the (then) Constitution. I think this applies to Taney's oppinion ut IIRC from high school history class not to the concurring opininon of the majority.

Many have noted that Dred Scott vs Sanford is pro-lifer code for Roe Vs Wade, and is freeqquently used by Alan Keyes. I might add that the conservative use of the old lefty false claim that the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence is as dispositive as the Constitution is absolutely characteristic of Keyes.

I think some milage might be made out of this. Conservative lawyers might be concerned that the President is getting his Constitutional scholarship from Alan Keyes. The one bright spot is that Keyesdoes not have a law degree so Bush would never try to appoint him to the Supreme court. I mean that would be crazy. The fact that, when asked who he would appoint to the supreme court, Bush started quoting Keyes means nothing right ? Right ?