Aussie wrote on Apr 17
th, 2018 at 1:02pm:
Read the Link in my Post.
Ah I understand now.
Well, of course the decision is NOW condemned; it's the 21st century!
My point is that even the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court (which is supposed to be a protector of rights) didn't even prevent Dred Scott from having his rights taken away from him.
Even if you compare it to the time and context, the British still did a better job of protecting the rights and liberties of its people than the Americans.
Conclusion: the American model has been, and is inferior to the British model.
Second, and just to go on another rant: there was a story heard once about a slave who escaped America and went to Canada. When he was there he stated that he couldn't believe that in the 'Queen's Dominions' (which was supposed to be the land of tyranny, according to American mythology) granted him more rights and liberties than a self-declared Republic.
Which leads to another conclusion: history has shown:
1) monarchies (although symbolically a tyrannical and unequal system) have produced more harmonious and equal societies than Republics.
2) the lack of a Bill of Rights and a court of arbitration has actually resulted in institutions which have protected the rights and liberties of its peoples more than the opposite.
Finally, this means the following: many pre-conceived notions about the monarchy and the British system are wrong, and paint a completely opposite picture to such notions.