Difference between revisions of "Cook v. Gralike"
(Replacing page with 'Penis') |
JLauttamus (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | In '''''Cook v. Gralike''''', 531 U.S. 510 (2001), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated under the [[U.S. Constitution]] a provision in the [[Missouri]] Constitution requiring indication on the ballot of whether congressional candidates declined to support a term limits amendment to the [[U.S. Constitution]]. Justice [[John Paul Stevens]], writing for the court, stated that this law was not a permissible exercise of the state's power to regulate the time, place, and manner of holding elections for [[federal]] offices. | |
| + | |||
| + | This expanded the holding in ''[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]]''. Surprisingly, Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] joined Justice Stevens majority opinion, but the other Justices who expressed different views in ''U.S. Term Limits'' continued to differ from Justice Stevens on the same or new grounds. | ||
| + | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 22:20, September 12, 2008
In Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated under the U.S. Constitution a provision in the Missouri Constitution requiring indication on the ballot of whether congressional candidates declined to support a term limits amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, stated that this law was not a permissible exercise of the state's power to regulate the time, place, and manner of holding elections for federal offices.
This expanded the holding in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. Surprisingly, Justice Antonin Scalia joined Justice Stevens majority opinion, but the other Justices who expressed different views in U.S. Term Limits continued to differ from Justice Stevens on the same or new grounds.