I need someone to paraphrased this and please when you post you paraphrase, post it as a picture.
The Dred Scott case, in regards to the judgment that was passed was influenced by the Constitution. The courts took the argument into consideration, albeit with a verdict already in mind, and looked for documentation to support their choice. By twisting the words in the Constitution to mean what they wanted it to mean it allowed them to do what they wanted, something that is now all too common with politicians. One dominant intellectual figure who comes to mind in this case is Frederick Douglas. His opinions and speeches help fuel the antislavery movement which probably gave Dred Scott the idea to plea for freedom.
2) If the case of Dred Scott was happening in 2013 it would be a very short a highly public court case. The ruling would definitely give Scott his freedom and the man holding him as a slave would be in jail for a very long time due to human trafficking laws. He may never see the light of day again.
3) The ideas in the document try to uphold what was considered ethical for quite a few years. Many people who thought slavery was wrong still didn't believe the black people were entitled to the same rights as white people. I can see where they were going with trying to limit state rights as making it to where they can't make people citizens of the United States.
4) The positions in the document were definitely of the time. After slavery became illegal prejudice is slowly dying down. It's still out there but it's not common to see in public especially with all the Political Correctness police wondering the streets.
5) I feel like I'm writing simple opinions which reflect my ethical position on the matter. To me they seem like the same thing.