Difference between revisions of "Cook v. Gralike"
(Undo revision 570986 by Dummwikirdumm (Talk)) |
(expanded) |
||
| 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. | + | 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. ''See'' U.S. Const., Art., I, sec. 4, cl. 1. |
| − | This | + | This applied the holding in ''[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]]''. Perhaps 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. |
| + | |||
| + | Justice Kennedy provided a fuller expression in his separate concurrence of his view that State interference in the relationship between the people and their federal representatives is unconstitutional. Accordingly, Justice Kennedy's objection is based on greater political power for the people without state interference. | ||
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category:recall]] | ||
Revision as of 04:31, May 16, 2010
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. See U.S. Const., Art., I, sec. 4, cl. 1.
This applied the holding in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. Perhaps 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.
Justice Kennedy provided a fuller expression in his separate concurrence of his view that State interference in the relationship between the people and their federal representatives is unconstitutional. Accordingly, Justice Kennedy's objection is based on greater political power for the people without state interference.