Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − +
no edit summary
Kerr v. Polis, 20 F.4th 686, 704 (10th Cir. 2021) (TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, concurring). He found no case since 1912 allowing a challenge based on this clause, and wrote with respect to a direct democracy:
Kerr v. Polis, 20 F.4th 686, 704 (10th Cir. 2021) (TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, concurring). He found no case since 1912 allowing a challenge based on this clause, and wrote with respect to a direct democracy:
{{cquote|See Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 759 F.3d 1186, 1195 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2014) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) ("[M]uch of [the scholarship] suggests that the Clause may rule out a state monarchy, a smaller amount . . . suggests the Clause may rule out a complete direct democracy, but none . . . credibly suggests a limited dose of direct democracy of the sort at issue here is constitutionally problematic." (citing Robert Natelson, A Republic, Not a Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution's Guarantee Clause, 80 Tex. L. Rev. 807, 811 n.19 (2002)); G. Edward White, Reading the Guarantee Clause, 65 U. Colo. L. Rev. 787, 803-06 (1994); Akhil Reed Amar, The Central Meaning of Republican Government: Popular Sovereignty, Majority Rule, and the Denominator Problem, 65 U. Colo. L. Rev. 749, 749-52, 761-73 (1994); Jonathan Toren, Protecting Republican Government from Itself: The Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4, 2 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 371, 374-92, 392-99 (2007))).}}
{{cquote|See Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 759 F.3d 1186, 1195 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2014) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) ("[M]uch of [the scholarship] suggests that the Clause may rule out a state monarchy, a smaller amount . . . suggests the Clause may rule out a complete direct democracy, but none . . . credibly suggests a limited dose of direct democracy of the sort at issue here is constitutionally problematic." (citing Robert Natelson, A Republic, Not a Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution's Guarantee Clause, 80 Tex. L. Rev. 807, 811 n.19 (2002)); G. Edward White, Reading the Guarantee Clause, 65 U. Colo. L. Rev. 787, 803-06 (1994); Akhil Reed Amar, The Central Meaning of Republican Government: Popular Sovereignty, Majority Rule, and the Denominator Problem, 65 U. Colo. L. Rev. 749, 749-52, 761-73 (1994); Jonathan Toren, Protecting Republican Government from Itself: The Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4, 2 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 371, 374-92, 392-99 (2007))).}}
Kerr v. Polis, 20 F.4th 686, 710 n.5 (10th Cir. 2021)( TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, concurring).
Kerr v. Polis, 20 F.4th 686, 710 n.5 (10th Cir. 2021) (Tymkovich, Chief Judge, concurring).
But in ''Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org.'', 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2354 (2022), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] observed in its citation to Baker v. Carr: "Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 202, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962) (clarifying that the 'political question' passage of the minority opinion in ''Colegrove v. Green'', 328 U. S. 549, 66 S. Ct. 1198, 90 L. Ed. 1432 (1946), was not controlling law)."
But in ''Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org.'', 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2354 (2022), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] observed in its citation to Baker v. Carr: "Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 202, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962) (clarifying that the 'political question' passage of the minority opinion in ''Colegrove v. Green'', 328 U. S. 549, 66 S. Ct. 1198, 90 L. Ed. 1432 (1946), was not controlling law)."