Yet that is not the classical meaning of upholding the rule of law. Under the rule of law, it is relevant to study the text and interpret the meaning of the rules as laid down in legislation and case law—a matter on which different judges could, and often do, disagree. And so it was in the Dred Scott case. The reasoning of the majority (Chief Justice Roger B. Taney joined by justices James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier, and John A. Campbell) was that when the Constitution was adopted, slaves were not regarded as citizens. The majority insisted that the original meaning of the Constitution must be upheld. Justice Taney said:

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 race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.

Justice Taney’s approach seems preposterous to many people today, so much so that Britannica, Wikipedia, and other politically correct sources of information confidently inform us that lawyers “all agree” that it is the worst decision ever handed out by any court in the entire history of the United States. This hyperbolic language reflects the universal normative rejection of slavery as immoral. But regarding a practice as abhorrent, and spewing forth wrath against nineteenth century judges by taking down their statues and memorials, does not in itself settle the point about constitutional interpretation. Otherwise, we would simply be saying that when we care enough about an issue that is widely regarded as abhorrent, we should disregard the Constitution—a view that is now widely touted by those opposed to the first and second amendments of the US Constitution. Activists who disagree with the first amendment protection of free speech argue that “free speech is hate speech,” which in their view is “literally genocide,” as the United Nations informs us that, “There are historical precedents showing that hate speech can be a precursor to atrocity crimes.” The second amendment protection for the right to bear arms fares no better in the eyes of the neo-Puritans, social justice warriors, and progressive activists who believe that, “Government is God’s major instrument of salvation.”