A fact from United States v. Lee (1882) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 March 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is very good on the history. To be that good on the law, I think it would need to put this case in the context (what later became known as) the Ex parte Young doctrine. It also might go to the law reviews (some of the relevant ones of which are already in the references section), to provide the reader some indication of whether this case is still good law after Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene (an open, but debated, question). Savidan 20:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, I would recommend removing the reference to the Constitution in the intro. Federal sovereign immunity is not mentioned in the text of the constitution. It is perhaps evidenced by its structure. Even with state sovereign immunity, which is explicit in the 11th amendment, the court has made clear that the scope of the doctrine goes beyond the text. While the exact source of the doctrine is fuzzy, and certainly the Constitution is relevant, it's too much for the intro, which simply isn't the appropriate space for an explanation of this. Savidan 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
In the section Seizure of the estate, I see the sentence "With rebel forces occupying Arlington's high ground, the capital was left in an untenable military position". It is not at all obvious what this means. My guess is that "rebel forces" means "Confederate forces", and that "the capital" is not the capital of Virginia, nor of the Confederacy, but of the Union. If I were sure, I would clarify the sentence. Maproom ( talk) 23:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed a section from the article, and reproduced it below:
'''Interestingly, the ''Lee'' decision also created a contradiction within the Supreme Court's approach to federal-state relations. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution bars the federal government from acquiring the land of any state except with that state's express permission.<ref name="Paust">Paust, 1999, p. 318, note 60.</ref> In ''United States v. Penn'', 48 F. 669, 670 (C.C.E.D. Va. 1880), a circuit court had held that the federal government held no jurisdiction over Arlington National Cemetery because it had not obtained Virginia's permission to hold title to the land.<ref name="Paust" /> The ''Lee'' Court never addressed this issue, and in fact came to the opposite conclusion (its decision to return the property to the Lee family being founded on other grounds).<ref name="Paust" />'''
I think it needs some reworking because there's several contradictions and simply wrong conclusions of law here. For one, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (or the Enclave Clause) does not bar the federal government from acquiring land within states without state permission. Rather, it requires that state permission be granted if the federal government wishes to exercise exclusive jurisidiction over land it has newly purchased, because doing so creates a "federal enclave" in which a state has essentially no powers whatsoever. The federal government does not need any permission to simply purchase land in fee simple, and then, as the proprietary landholder, exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the land as authorized by the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). Some legal discussion of this can be found here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. ( non-admin closure) — Guan aco 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
– There are several US cases with the name United States v. Lee. US Federal Courts distinguish cases with the same name with the year in parentheses after the case name. I am requesting two moves: First, change the current United States v. Lee to add the year (1882) to distinguish this case from other cases with the same name. Second, change the United States v. Lee (disambiguation) to United States v. Lee so that if someone searches for United States v. Lee, this will assist in finding the correct case. Chipermc ( talk) 23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/ c 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
A fact from United States v. Lee (1882) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 March 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is very good on the history. To be that good on the law, I think it would need to put this case in the context (what later became known as) the Ex parte Young doctrine. It also might go to the law reviews (some of the relevant ones of which are already in the references section), to provide the reader some indication of whether this case is still good law after Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene (an open, but debated, question). Savidan 20:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, I would recommend removing the reference to the Constitution in the intro. Federal sovereign immunity is not mentioned in the text of the constitution. It is perhaps evidenced by its structure. Even with state sovereign immunity, which is explicit in the 11th amendment, the court has made clear that the scope of the doctrine goes beyond the text. While the exact source of the doctrine is fuzzy, and certainly the Constitution is relevant, it's too much for the intro, which simply isn't the appropriate space for an explanation of this. Savidan 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
In the section Seizure of the estate, I see the sentence "With rebel forces occupying Arlington's high ground, the capital was left in an untenable military position". It is not at all obvious what this means. My guess is that "rebel forces" means "Confederate forces", and that "the capital" is not the capital of Virginia, nor of the Confederacy, but of the Union. If I were sure, I would clarify the sentence. Maproom ( talk) 23:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed a section from the article, and reproduced it below:
'''Interestingly, the ''Lee'' decision also created a contradiction within the Supreme Court's approach to federal-state relations. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution bars the federal government from acquiring the land of any state except with that state's express permission.<ref name="Paust">Paust, 1999, p. 318, note 60.</ref> In ''United States v. Penn'', 48 F. 669, 670 (C.C.E.D. Va. 1880), a circuit court had held that the federal government held no jurisdiction over Arlington National Cemetery because it had not obtained Virginia's permission to hold title to the land.<ref name="Paust" /> The ''Lee'' Court never addressed this issue, and in fact came to the opposite conclusion (its decision to return the property to the Lee family being founded on other grounds).<ref name="Paust" />'''
I think it needs some reworking because there's several contradictions and simply wrong conclusions of law here. For one, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (or the Enclave Clause) does not bar the federal government from acquiring land within states without state permission. Rather, it requires that state permission be granted if the federal government wishes to exercise exclusive jurisidiction over land it has newly purchased, because doing so creates a "federal enclave" in which a state has essentially no powers whatsoever. The federal government does not need any permission to simply purchase land in fee simple, and then, as the proprietary landholder, exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the land as authorized by the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). Some legal discussion of this can be found here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. ( non-admin closure) — Guan aco 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
– There are several US cases with the name United States v. Lee. US Federal Courts distinguish cases with the same name with the year in parentheses after the case name. I am requesting two moves: First, change the current United States v. Lee to add the year (1882) to distinguish this case from other cases with the same name. Second, change the United States v. Lee (disambiguation) to United States v. Lee so that if someone searches for United States v. Lee, this will assist in finding the correct case. Chipermc ( talk) 23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/ c 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)