Today in Supreme Court History: December 21, 1922

12/21/1922: Justice Pierce Butler takes oath.

Justice Pierce Butler

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (decided December 21, 1970): original jurisdiction case; Congress can set voting age requirements for federal elections but not state or local elections (quickly abrogated by Twenty-Sixth Amendment which set national voting age of 18)

Baltimore City Dept. of Social Services v. Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (decided December 21, 1988): Granting stay of Court of Appeals order holding that mother properly invoked self-incrimination privilege when refusing to answer questions from DSS about whereabouts of son (in other words, the trial court’s holding of contempt was back in effect) (this was not a sympathetic contemnor; there was “hard evidence” of mother’s previous physical abuse of child and she had stopped attending parenting classes and appearing for DSS appointments) (the Court eventually affirmed the finding of contempt, 493 U.S. 549, 1990). She was finally released in 1995 after seven years in jail. The judge ordered no contact with her son (fortunately they had found him) unless cleared by a psychiatrist. This is from the story of her release, from the Baltimore Sun: “Ms. Bouknight’s attorneys insisted their client had been victimized for trying to cooperate with police to find Maurice. Every time she started to help again, other lawyers in their case would withdraw their support for her release on the grounds that her cooperation meant that keeping her jailed was having some helpful effect.” ??

Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (decided December 21, 1942): North Carolina must give “full faith and credit” (art. IV, §1) to Nevada divorces; can’t bring a bigamy prosecution (at which a jury evaluated proper service of Nevada divorce proceedings and “bona fides” of couple’s residence in Nevada)

[Syd Henderson]

You want a nice, complicated set of concurrences and dissents, look at "Oregon v. Mitchell." There were four parts, and none of the four justices that dissented from part 1 were among the four justices that dissented from part 2, but somehow there was a plurality opinion.

I agree with the decision, by the way; we needed the 26th Amendment to settle this. By the way, I turned 21 right before the 1972 election so I didn't gain anything by the amendment. Though I suppose I could have voted in local elections despite being away at college.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

I hope you kept on voting! (only once per election of course)

[apedad]

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

" . . . or by any State . . . . "

Is 26A the only part of the Constitution that SPECIFICALLY restricts States?

Everyone thinks the Constitution has clear lines of separation between the branches, and between the federal and state governments - but there are some overlaps, e.g., VP is Pres. of Senate, 26A, etc.

[Syd Henderson]

No, the 15th and 19th Amendments also do.

[Syd Henderson]

And the first clause of the 14th also does: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," although that may not be what you have in mind.

[SMP0328]

Don't forget the 24th Amendment (failure to pay a tax can not be reason for denying right to vote in federal elections).

[apedad]

Thanks for the reminder!

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The only guy who got Buck v. Bell right.

[Dan Schiavetta]

? You mean for the child? Still makes no sense.

[Dan Schiavetta]

But they were usually supporting her release.