Question

upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution; and that the circuit court of the united states, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. -dred scott v. sandford, supreme court of the united states which statement is the best summary of the passage? o dred scott was not a truly legalized citizen of the state of missouri. o because dred scott was not a citizen, no court could hear his case. o missouris judgment was in error, and the supreme court had to reverse the judgment. o the meaning of \citizen\ in the us constitution was unclear, so the decision had to be reversed.

Explanation:

The passage states that the plaintiff (Dred Scott) was not a citizen (as per the Constitution's definition), so the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction. This led to the judgment being reversed and the suit dismissed. The second option captures this main idea - lack of citizenship leading to no court jurisdiction. The first option only mentions non - citizenship. The third option wrongly implies Missouri's judgment was in error (the error was about jurisdiction due to non - citizenship). The fourth option's claim about the Constitution's "citizen" meaning being unclear is not in the passage.

Answer:

Because Dred Scott was not a citizen, no court could hear his case.