Talk:Harmelin v. Michigan

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Run-on sentence?

English is not my native language, but isn't this a "run-on sentence"?

'White also argues that Scalia's arguments against the proportionality requirement turn the foundations of the Court's capital punishment jurisprudence would rest on "quicksand."'

If so, please fix it. -- 77.7.148.119 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Where does all the material for this article come from? Is all this from the decision opinions? I, personally, find it hard to believe that in so much analysis comes only from the words of the justices, and not the words of the Wikipedia editors. What say you all? Int21h (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson's stance towards originalism

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Source --Fb8cont (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]