The implication of Taney's argument that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of slave-owners' property was

Athat the Kansas-Nebraska Act had been unconstitutional.
Bthat the Compromise of 1850 had been unconstitutional.
Cthat the Fugitive Slave Act had been unconstitutional.
Dthat the Missouri Compromise had been unconstitutional.

Taney's argument in the Dred Scott case suggested that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owners' property rights, implying that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. This stance highlighted the legal conflicts surrounding slavery in the United States. Ultimately, Taney's interpretation reinforced the volatile debates over slavery and constitutional rights.

Explanation:

Understanding Taney's Argument in the Context of the Fifth Amendment

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, in his ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857, argued that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking a person's property without due process. This assertion was significant particularly in terms of how it applied to enslaved individuals, whom slave owners viewed as property. Taney's interpretation suggested that any laws that interfered with the property rights of slave owners were unconstitutional.

The implication of Taney's argument indicated that a key piece of legislation, the Missouri Compromise, was unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise aimed to regulate slavery in the western territories and was an attempt to maintain a balance between slave and free states. However, by asserting that slave owners had a constitutional right to their "property," Taney effectively argued that this compromise violated the protections granted by the Fifth Amendment.

As a result, the answer to the question would be: (D) that the Missouri Compromise had been unconstitutional.

Learn more about Constitutional Rights and Slavery here:

https://brainly.com/question/33873477