Talk:Stuart v. Laird

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The article currently says "Stuart won on both accounts, and a dangerous show-down between the legislative and the judicial branches of the United States' government was averted." In fact Stuart lost on both accounts. If Stuart had prevailed (i.e., if the court had struck down the 1802 repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act), that would have triggered the "dangerous show-down" that the article (correctly) says was averted. My reference is http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/stuart.htm, which is already cited in the article, as well as other law references on the web (just Google "Stuart v. Laird"). I believe the entry as now written must simply be a typo. As this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I am going to wait a few days for responses to this comment before I make the edit. Logician1989 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objection, and having double-checked my references, I will make the edit. --Logician1989 00:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted a seemingly mischievous edit -- even if "Iguana v. Melinda" is a real case, it isn't the case that this article should be citing. --Logician1989 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Marshall believed the 1802 repeal of the 1801 Judiciary act to be unconstitutional. In fact, Marshall upheld the 1802 Act below while riding circuit. He then recused himself from the appeal. Any basic research will show this result but for example: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/conlaw/stuartvlaird.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.169.26 (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]