Talk:Judiciary Act of 1789
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Removing Anti-Wiki Slurs!
I doubt the original author included the last line of the first paragraph stating that Wikipedia can't be trusted. Either way, it isn't germane to the article and should either be removed or added as a note at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejm634 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nitpick
wikitikitiki cheeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.136.181 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I just made a modification to the text, and my justification is just a little bit too large for the edit summary. Basically, the article contained the following text: "Each district comprised one state, except for the districts of Maine and Kentucky, which at the time were part of Massachusetts and Virginia, respectively." Well, that's not quite true: the districts of Massachusetts and Virginia didn't comprise one state either. So I flipped it around: all of the states except two comprised one district. I then expanded on how Massachusetts and Virginia were divided.
— DLJessup (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The Judiciary Act of 1789 never fulfilled its Constitutional needs. Congress was given no responsibilty for legislation affecting the Supreme Court. They could pass legislation that could be ratified by the States and incorporated into the Constitution as an Amendment. They did this with the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments. In addition, there is no vote recorded by the House of Representatives on official documents before it was given to President Washington to sign. Since an act of Congress cannot exceed powers given to it except by Amendment, all decisions rendered by an illegal court must be null and void and a Constitutional Amendment must be pursued regarding the composition of the Supreme Court. The Constitution also states that the Supreme Court shall hear ALL cases involving violation of the Constitution. The Congressional law passed through the efforts of Chief Justice Taft is also null and void for Congress has no power to change any word in the Constitution without use of the Amendment procedure. It is amazing that none of the "experts" regarding Constitutional law ever brought these facts to light. Shel Haas
Sources: The Congressional Record, The Constitution of the United States of America
[edit] The Picture of the 1st Page
Is this image entirely necessary? I feel that unless a higher resolution can be shown for reading purposes, the use of such an image is lost. Absolute Zerr 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
