Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
907
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: + + + +
Talk:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions (view source)
Revision as of 18:45, August 4, 2011
, 18:45, August 4, 2011→Baker v Carr: new section
:Point. I just read the opinion, and it said that while "The District Court therefore abused its discretion in imposing the tax itself," but "a local government with taxing authority may be ordered to levy taxes in excess of the limit set by state statute" to integrate schools. I'll edit the article accordingly. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]]
:Point. I just read the opinion, and it said that while "The District Court therefore abused its discretion in imposing the tax itself," but "a local government with taxing authority may be ordered to levy taxes in excess of the limit set by state statute" to integrate schools. I'll edit the article accordingly. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]]
== Baker v Carr ==
It seems an eminently reasonable decision to me that the court can mandate that districts should be of roughly equal size so that each vote is of equal weight. If one district has 1 million people and another has 10 thousand people surely one could not say that the votes of people in each district are equal in value. What exactly is the objection to this decision? I understand that the effect of the decision was to reduce the power of rural (and typically more conservative) districts, but such political ramifications cannot be the basis for criticising a legal decision.<br /> Having read a summary of the case I am also not persuaded that the argument regarding judicial interference in a political process holds much sway in the light of the fact that the Tennessee constitution specifically mandated that districts be redrawn to match population change. If a court is not able to enforce this provision then what point is there in having a constitution. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:45, 4 August 2011 (EDT)