Question

which statement best counters justice taneys argument regarding the dred scott case? a state can introduce a new member into the political community one of citizens constitutional rights is the right to sue in court being born in the united states makes you a citizen of the united states the terms \people of the united states\ and \citizens\ mean the same thing.

Explanation:

• Justice Taney argued that African - Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens.
• The statement "Being born in the United States makes you a citizen of the United States" directly challenges this. It is based on the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), which is a fundamental concept in citizenship law.
• Option A about a state introducing a new member is too vague and not directly related to the core issue of citizenship in the Dred Scott context.
• Option B about the right to sue is not the main counter - argument to Taney's citizenship claim.
• Option D about the terms "people of the United States" and "citizens" meaning the same is not as powerful a counter as the citizenship - by - birth argument against Taney's view.

Answer:

Being born in the United States makes you a citizen of the United States.