Many questions meme

Here it is--( lots of stuff about me )

Strictly speaking

Bush, from the debate last night:

"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges,
years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of
personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The
Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it
doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.
We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make
law; judges interpret the Constitution."

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (strict constructionist), from the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

"The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African
race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution,
cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed
and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when
it was formed and adopted....

....Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that
it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not
a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the
Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for
that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no
judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be
reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction."

The Constitution of the United States, article IV, section IV:

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due.