Question

Opinion of the court in Dred

Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney.
The question before us is, whether the class of persons
described in the plea in abatement compose a portion
of this people, and are constituent members of this
sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are
not included, and were not intended to be included,
under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can
therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which
that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of
the United States. On the contrary, they were at that
time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of
beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant
ace, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained
subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges
out such as those who held the power and the
to grant them.
What fallacy can you identify and discredit to develop a
counterclaim to this claim?
the idea that citizens have rights and privileges that
are guaranteed in the Constitution
O the idea that noncitizens cannot claim certain rights
and privileges in the Constitution
O the idea that the plaintiff considers himself a citizen
and therefore has rights and privileges
O the idea that African American people are inferior
based on perceptions from an earlier time

Answer 1

The fallacy that can be identified and discredited to develop a counterclaim to the claim made in the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford is:

O the idea that African American people are inferior based on perceptions from an earlier time.

The opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney, stated that African American individuals were considered a subordinate and inferior class of beings at the time of the Constitution. This fallacy is based on the belief in racial inferiority and is not supported by evidence or moral principles.

To develop a counterclaim, we can argue against this fallacy by emphasizing the principles of equality and justice. The idea that African American people are inherently inferior is discriminatory and goes against the principles of equal rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the notion that rights and privileges in the Constitution are only applicable to citizens is also a fallacy. The Constitution provides certain fundamental rights and protections to all individuals, regardless of their citizenship status. These rights include freedom of speech, religion, and due process.

By discrediting the fallacy of racial inferiority and emphasizing the principles of equality and the universal applicability of constitutional rights, we can develop a counterclaim to the claim made in the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. This counterclaim supports the idea that all individuals, regardless of their race or citizenship, are entitled to the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution.

Step-by-step explanation: