Talk:Barron v. Baltimore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
At the end of the article, it is stated/implied that the entirety of the Bill of Rights now applies to the states. This is untrue. Certain Supreme Court cases have set precedent such that specific rights offered by the Bill of Rights apply to states. Someone ought to do something about this. :]
- I fixed it, but it's not really perfect. -68.100.68.23 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Barron v. Baltimore made it so that the 5th Amendment's "due-process" clause wasn't applicable to the states.
Doesn't the full citation belong in wikiSource? Rklawton 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think so. -68.100.68.23 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
"The case is particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights could not be selectively incorporated." But this isn't true either. The Seventh Amendment's civil jury guarantee, wasn't incorporated against the States. Am I missing something, or should this sentence be changed? ConDissenter 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barron vs. Baltimore
wasn't the reason barron sued baltimore in the first place because the city of baltimore was conducting pavement construction that caused his wharf to fill with sand? the article is not very clear and makes it seem as if barron filed suit for no good reason other than to recover lost funds that were in no way associated with baltimore.
[edit] Taney
One of the attorney's in this case is a Marylander name Taney. Could that be Roger Taney before he became Chief Justice? --Daysleeper47 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
