...by the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment. "And," Taney continued, "an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty...Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law." With this...

...Pennsylvania..."; and (2) Chief Justice Taney's holding in Scott v. Sanford,104 that "an Act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty...into a particular Territory of the United States... could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law." Randolph argued that upon the annexation...

...exercise them."132 Taney explained this "express" limitation as follows: And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty...the United States, and who had committed no offence [sic] against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.1" On this point,...

...Constitution. Taney held that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in federal territory: "an Act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty...Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law." Nor, Taney...

...employed incidentally Wynehamer's novel approaches and assumptions, stating: [An] Act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty...Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the law, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law. Were Dred Scott...

...brought his property into a particular territory of the United States and had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law. What Taney did was decide that an act of Congress forbidding slavery in certain territories was unconstitutional...

...slave, and he said this — this is the first use that I know of — he said an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property — he is talking about the slave master — an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United...

...citizen of his (slave) property merely because he brought it into a territory of the United States, "could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law." Moreover, he asserted, "if Congress itself cannot do this — if it is beyond the powers conferred...

...grounds. In "Scott v. Sandford, 60 US (19 How.) 393, 450 (1857) (Taney, CJ): An act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty...be dignified with the name of due process of law. Whether Taney actually spoke for a majority on this issue, and whether he really meant to base his...

...deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law," and an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty...hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.259 Nothing in the Constitution, he added, "gives Congress a greater power over slave property,...