User talk:128.255.9.56

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Morrison

Hi. Is this the paragraph that you're objecting to? "The Court responded that the Fourteenth Amendment limits the manner in which Congress may remedy discrimination, and requires that a civil remedy be directed at a State or state actor instead of a private party. The Fourteenth Amendment, said the Court, prohibits only state action – i.e., action by state governments – and not private conduct." How is this a non-sequitur?Ferrylodge 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That part is fine. The part I added (after your quoted text) doesn't really go with that paragraph though. I didn't really have time to work that into the discussion as a whole, but it is a very important concept. When you read that paragraph it's a little cut-and-paste, at least in my opinion.
The idea of complex remedial legislation is important in this case (and the Katzenbach ones as well), but it is not really elucidated here. It was just a suggestion, as I would want to see that issue highlighted when understanding how this case is couched in the Fourteenth Amendment. In my opinion, a section apart from the Equal Protection section identifying VAWA as complex remedial legislation and showing how that type of legislation has been upheld in the past may be helpful (I'm new - don't know how to add sections). That would make this article flow nicely: (1) Congress passed complex remedial legislation to prevent state discrimination (what is CRL and how has it been treated in the past, brief history), (2) Court found Congress did not have power under the commerce clause (and why), and (3) Court found no power under 14:5 (and why). I may take a crack at it sometime soon, but I don't have the time just now.
Please remember to put four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, in order to automatically sign your comments. I don't have a whole lot of time myself. Please keep in mind that we don't want the article getting too long. I've heard of the term "complex remedial legislation", but it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the case, and it would be preferable to stick as closely as possible to the text of the case. We've had considerable controversy about this article, and the only way we were able to reach consensus was by sticking close to what the opinions actually said. Anyway, thanks for your contributions to the article. I'll see if I can touch it up to address some of the points you raise.Ferrylodge 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/2/8/User_talk%7E128.255.9.56.html"