Jump to content

Talk:United States v. Morrison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 3 RR Violation by Hydriotaphia

[edit]

As of June 30 to July 1 2008. And for no reason that makes any sense.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again, Jim. Here, here, and here. Three revisions only. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia (talk)

status post-Raich?

[edit]

There's been a lot of speculation in the legal-academic sphere about the extent to which Morrison is still viable post-Raich. I'm not an expert, but it seems there's at least some debate over the extent to which Raich narrowed or undermined Morrison that's worth summarizing here, if someone's familiar with the literature. I'm thinking of articles like "Is Morrison Dead?" from this journal issue. --Delirium (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who knows more than I do should add something about this. However, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy are still on the Court.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amending the Constitution

[edit]

I cannot find anywhere in Justice Souter's dissent a discussion of whether the Fourteenth Amendment amended the Constitution, whether the amendment was permissible, etc. For that reason, the most recent edits amount to OR and thus don't comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Hydriotaphia (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Amendments that alter the balance of power between the National and State Governments, like the Fourteenth, or that change the way the States are represented within the Federal Government, like the Seventeenth, are not rips in the fabric of the Framers' Constitution, inviting judicial repairs. The Seventeenth Amendment may indeed have lessened the enthusiasm of the Senate to represent the States as discrete sovereignties, but the Amendment did not convert the judiciary into an alternate shield against the commerce power." - Justice Souter. This is the minority opinion. The majority opinion is explained in enough detail, and it was a five to four decision.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it my fault you're wrong again?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That, of course, is not what your previous edits actually said. Don't blame me for misunderstanding when your own writing is misleading or incoherent. Hydriotaphia (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rehnquist wrote, "Petitioners alternatively argue that, unlike the situation in the Civil Rights Cases, here there has been gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities, whereas in those cases there was no indication of such state action. There is abundant evidence, however, to show that the Congresses that enacted the Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1875 had a purpose similar to that of Congress in enacting §13981: There were state laws on the books bespeaking equality of treatment, but in the administration of these laws there was discrimination against newly freed slaves."
So the Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply to unequal protection of state laws regarding "newly freed slaves," rape victims and so forth, according to the majority. Not much, if any, of the Equal Protection Clause remains under such interpretations, or judicial nullification, or whatever you choose to call it. The minority said the Equal Protection Clause does apply to unequal protection of state laws because the majority very clearly said the opposite was true.
The majority clearly said the Equal Protection Clause didn't even apply to the chief reason it was created as a post Civil War amendment.
The majority's major premise is that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to a mix of state action and state inaction.
By definition, unequal protection includes both state action and state inaction.
The conclusion, based on their premises, is clear.
The Constitution states that only the equal suffrage of states in the Senate is unamendable. The majority, relying on Reconstruction era precedents, argued that any mix of state action and state inaction (unequal protection of state laws) was allowed, and could not be amended by the Equal Protection Clause.
Rehnquist never did like that "cat-o'-nine-tails," the Equal Protection Clause.
Are you sure you read the opinions?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, that's an interesting and contestable interpretation of the opinion, but it's blatantly POV. Look, I don't like Rehnquist either; I think he was (among other things) intellectually dishonest. But that's not the point. Let's not waste our energy on further discussions of this sort. Hydriotaphia (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was the majority POV that clearly states that equal protection of the laws did not apply to newly emancipated slaves, modern rape victims and so on. You said that was my opinion, or my interpretation, when this is, again, very, very clearly spelled out in the majority opinion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What other possible interpretation did you have in mind?Jimmuldrow (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States v. Morrison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_v._Morrison&oldid=1210801602"