Talk:West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

	This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-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.)

I would suggest that information about Justice Frankfurter's dissent be added to this article. Frankfurter agreed substantatively with the Opinion of the Court, but wrote a lengthy dissent focusing on his beliefs regarding judicial restraint. Juansmith 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added the following external link http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZD.html to cover this. Feel free to use this link to expand the article in the direction that you desire perfectblue97 --perfectblue 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation of Frankfurter's dissent is completely wrong. The opinion says he doesn't like making it mandatory, but he has no grounds to strike it down.

To quote, from the first damn paragraph:

I cannot bring my mind to believe that the "liberty" secured by the Due Process Clause gives this Court authority to deny to the State of West Virginia the attainment of that which we all recognize as a legitimate legislative end, namely, the promotion of good citizenship, by employment of the means here chosen.

The interpretation of his dissent is entirely wrong, and should be removed, or corrected. I've added in a brief section with a more accurate interpretation.

I mean, the guy had written an opinion only three years before that this decision was overturning, of course he didn't 'agree substatitively'

The "Facts of the Case" paragraph only provides insights and opinion. Should be renamed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.213.65 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)