Talk:Stuart v. Laird
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.) |
|
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-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. |
The article currently says "Stuart won on both accounts, and a dangerous show-down between the legislative and the judicial branches of the United States' government was averted." In fact Stuart lost on both accounts. If Stuart had prevailed (i.e., if the court had struck down the 1802 repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act), that would have triggered the "dangerous show-down" that the article (correctly) says was averted. My reference is http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/stuart.htm, which is already cited in the article, as well as other law references on the web (just Google "Stuart v. Laird"). I believe the entry as now written must simply be a typo. As this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I am going to wait a few days for responses to this comment before I make the edit. Logician1989 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hearing no objection, and having double-checked my references, I will make the edit. --Logician1989 00:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverted a seemingly mischievous edit -- even if "Iguana v. Melinda" is a real case, it isn't the case that this article should be citing. --Logician1989 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
