Talk:Luther v. Borden
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. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-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. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-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.) |
|
 |
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. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. |
[edit] "Republican in nature"
The article says that:
Martin Luther contended that because the charter government was not republican in nature (it restricted the electorate to only the most propertied classes) that the Supreme Court should find in his favor and order his alternative republican government to be the government of Rhode Island, superseding the charter government.
I wonder if the parenthetical here is Luther's actual assertion as to why the Court should have found RI's govt. to be not republican -- that is, that in order to be republican it needs to be more democratic. It's not clear to me from the documents cited that that's the case. Did he perhaps mean it in a more narrow sense -- that the RI govt. still operated under the charter granted by the British King in the 17th century, and thus was not republican in the sense that it was a monarch's document? Anyone who is more familiar with the case, help me out! --Jfruh 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
