"Facts on the Ground" and Supreme Court rulings.

Post Reply New Topic

After the Dred Scott Decision in 1858 - when the Supreme Court ruled African slaves and their descendants could never become American Citizens - "facts on the ground" eroded this ruling resulting in African slaves and their descendants becoming US citizens.

So what does "facts on the ground" mean in the here and now? For instance, take a look at a statue on the grounds of one state capitol which the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional by the state's own constitution, not the US, because it forbids a mixture of government and religion, known as a theocracy. Wouldn't "facts on the ground" override that determination, just like it eventually did for African slaves and their descendants, since it's a fact the statue is already on the capitol's "ground?"

By your reasoning it would be unconstitutional to punish ANY criminal for ANY crime unless law enforcement could somehow read minds and could arrest you before you finished perpetrating your crime. If you rob a bank of a million dollars, and make it home to stuff the loot into your mattress then you being a million dollars richer would be "a fact on the ground", but you would still go to prison when the cops caught up with you.

Substitute a state for you, substitute erecting a statue that violates the Constitution for robbing a bank, and the same thing applies. The fact the statue is an existing statue "sitting on the ground" no more overrides any law than you making it home with stolen property does.

Not a lawyer, but my guess as to what the phrase "facts on the ground" means in legalspeak is that the original law becomes outdated, and irrelevent due to massive changes in society. The judge who made the Dread Scott Decision assumed that slavery would exist forever. He couldnt forsee that only seven years, and a civil war, later the slaves would all be freed.

A better example than your statue of 'a fact on the ground' over riding written law might be archaic laws still on the books. Someone told me once that "according to the Constitution of the State of Maryland the state governor is also the head of the Catholic Church in the state of Maryland". At the time I heard this our governor was Marvin Mandel who happened to be Jewish.

Back when Maryland was set up by Lord Baltimore as one of the original 13 colonies he intended the place to be a haven for British Catholics fleeing protestant oppression. But after some years Lord Baltimore realized that he couldnt get enough Catholics to migrate here and settle to make a viable colony so he began inviting anyone of any religion to settle here.

But apparently he never struck that law from the books. And apparently no one else ever got around to repealing that law about the Governor either...for the next 400 years. So its still on the books.

Cut to the present: lets imagine that governor Larry Hogan got hard up for funds (to build the Purple Line, or whatever). Lets say he decided to exploit that forgotten law. Lets say he declared that "since I am the head of the Catholic church in this state I will confiscate all properties of the Catholic church in Maryland (the churches, everything), and sell the assets off to the highest bidders. And then put the money into the state treasury to pay for the new light rail system. Is that a plan, or what?"

The courts probably wouldnt allow him to go through with it. And their argument might well be:"the Facts on the Ground...are that Maryland ceased to be a Catholic theocracy LONG ago, and those facts on the ground over ride the written law that mandates that the Governor is the local head of the church".

Not my reasoning. It's historical fact.

The question is invalid.

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

As erosion goes, constitutional amendments are pretty abrupt.

I'm not convinced that the ruling was ever made invalid.

But it was explicitly overturned by amendments 13 and 14.

Did you cite a source?

I found this link on Reconstruction of the Southern US after the American Civil War and found this term. I guess it applies to those occupying an area...not necessarily statues and monuments, too.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tse ... uction.htm

The excerpt does not say that "facts on the ground alone caused Blacks to become full citizens".

It says that facts on the ground pushed their status from "non" to an in between limbo state that would later be clearly defined as full citizenship by later legislation during the Reconstruction period.

Well... what about them?

Well...we're back to going in circles. I cant believe that the mere existence of an illegal statue is enough to make it legal because then any crime would be rendered legal.

And the Israeli settlements on the occupied territories is international law, and not American law, and its a whole 'nother controversy for another thread anyway! Don't wanna touch that can of worms!

"Facts on the ground" means that a law became outdated by changes in society. Like the Governor of Maryland doubling as the head of the Catholic Church within the state of Maryland.