This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The doctrine of incorporation concerns whether provisions of the Bill of Rights are "incorporated into" the 14th Amendment. This is not common knowledge. Though the article does get around to explaining this, it uses the term "incorporation" more than once before doing so. This is confusing. Agent Cooper ( talk) 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, very little of the terminology pertaining to the Supreme Court is "common knowledge". Relevant to its subject matter, incorporation is a basic term. Install a wiki link on the word to the "incorporation" article, if you feel its not clear enough. Napkin65 ( talk) 20:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: It is not just a writing quality issue but it has appearances of bias. The article falsely claims that the Slaughter-House Cases excluded the Bill of Rights form incorporation by 14th Amendment, while in the decision issued on April 14, 1873, in that matter, the Supreme Court merely ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause affected only rights of US citizenship, not state citizenship. Obviously, the Bill of Rights guarantees rights of U.S. citizens so the above insinuation is patently false, and fallacious interpretations notwithstanding. 172.88.206.28 ( talk) 05:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of related cases working their way through the US court system now, where each one uses the McDonald decision applying the 2nd Amendment to the States as a foundation, and conceivably obtaining clarification through evolving case law as to just how far reaching McDonald and Heller will be. There are reliable sources on each of these cases, so they could possibly be used to improve the article in the Related cases section to show legacy effect on McDonald. Mvialt ( talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
QUOTE Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). UNQUOTE
Well, an exact reference to such determination is missing; the article Slaughter-House Cases does not contain any mention of such determination. In the decision issued on April 14, 1873, in that matter, the Supreme Court merely ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause affected only rights of US citizenship, not state citizenship. Obviously, the Bill of Rights guarantees rights of U.S. citizens so the above reference does not support the quoted claim. 172.88.206.28 ( talk) 05:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, but the current link to the case on the docket is dead: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-1521.htm
This one works, however: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/08-1521.html
But I don't know how to substitute it for the info box in the top right of the article.
Phantom in ca ( talk) 04:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Extensive evidence by Adumbrativus suggests that the two variants are in similar circulation and thus there is no pressing need to move per WP:TITLECHANGES. Plus, Bluebook (seems to) favor the current title. No such user ( talk) 11:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
McDonald v. City of Chicago → McDonald v. Chicago – McDonald v. Chicago appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. The Oyez Project [1], Cornell Law School [2], Bill of Rights Institute [3], and when I looked it up the hyperlink for the Supreme Court page just said McDonald v. Chicago, obviously it gives the full title upon entering. The "City of" part is already excluded from a lot of this article including the infobox, and the more simple version has over 10 million more hits on Google. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
00:08, 13 January 2015 Good Olfactory talk contribs block 57 bytes +57 Good Olfactory moved page McDonald v. Chicago to McDonald v. City of Chicago over redirect: name of case per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Article_titles; following Bluebook
by a still-active admin so perhaps that rationale should be considered. Andrewa ( talk) 04:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
include "City of" when it begins the name of a party? Or is just that that's what Bluebook does and MOS:LAW says to follow Bluebook? If it's the former, could you provide a pointer to which section this is in? (It doesn't actually affect my !vote in this case, I'm more just curious.) Colin M ( talk) 17:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The doctrine of incorporation concerns whether provisions of the Bill of Rights are "incorporated into" the 14th Amendment. This is not common knowledge. Though the article does get around to explaining this, it uses the term "incorporation" more than once before doing so. This is confusing. Agent Cooper ( talk) 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, very little of the terminology pertaining to the Supreme Court is "common knowledge". Relevant to its subject matter, incorporation is a basic term. Install a wiki link on the word to the "incorporation" article, if you feel its not clear enough. Napkin65 ( talk) 20:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: It is not just a writing quality issue but it has appearances of bias. The article falsely claims that the Slaughter-House Cases excluded the Bill of Rights form incorporation by 14th Amendment, while in the decision issued on April 14, 1873, in that matter, the Supreme Court merely ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause affected only rights of US citizenship, not state citizenship. Obviously, the Bill of Rights guarantees rights of U.S. citizens so the above insinuation is patently false, and fallacious interpretations notwithstanding. 172.88.206.28 ( talk) 05:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of related cases working their way through the US court system now, where each one uses the McDonald decision applying the 2nd Amendment to the States as a foundation, and conceivably obtaining clarification through evolving case law as to just how far reaching McDonald and Heller will be. There are reliable sources on each of these cases, so they could possibly be used to improve the article in the Related cases section to show legacy effect on McDonald. Mvialt ( talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
QUOTE Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). UNQUOTE
Well, an exact reference to such determination is missing; the article Slaughter-House Cases does not contain any mention of such determination. In the decision issued on April 14, 1873, in that matter, the Supreme Court merely ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause affected only rights of US citizenship, not state citizenship. Obviously, the Bill of Rights guarantees rights of U.S. citizens so the above reference does not support the quoted claim. 172.88.206.28 ( talk) 05:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, but the current link to the case on the docket is dead: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-1521.htm
This one works, however: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/08-1521.html
But I don't know how to substitute it for the info box in the top right of the article.
Phantom in ca ( talk) 04:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Extensive evidence by Adumbrativus suggests that the two variants are in similar circulation and thus there is no pressing need to move per WP:TITLECHANGES. Plus, Bluebook (seems to) favor the current title. No such user ( talk) 11:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
McDonald v. City of Chicago → McDonald v. Chicago – McDonald v. Chicago appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. The Oyez Project [1], Cornell Law School [2], Bill of Rights Institute [3], and when I looked it up the hyperlink for the Supreme Court page just said McDonald v. Chicago, obviously it gives the full title upon entering. The "City of" part is already excluded from a lot of this article including the infobox, and the more simple version has over 10 million more hits on Google. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
00:08, 13 January 2015 Good Olfactory talk contribs block 57 bytes +57 Good Olfactory moved page McDonald v. Chicago to McDonald v. City of Chicago over redirect: name of case per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Article_titles; following Bluebook
by a still-active admin so perhaps that rationale should be considered. Andrewa ( talk) 04:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
include "City of" when it begins the name of a party? Or is just that that's what Bluebook does and MOS:LAW says to follow Bluebook? If it's the former, could you provide a pointer to which section this is in? (It doesn't actually affect my !vote in this case, I'm more just curious.) Colin M ( talk) 17:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)