Talk:Cheek v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon


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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Taxation (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Redirects needed

Cheek v. U.S. Cheek v. US 498 U.S. 192 498 US 192

Two separate holdings[edit]

I have elaborated on the holdings in this case in the article. The Court made a very distinct differentiation between arguments about constitutionality and all other arguments, resulting in two separate holdings. Yours, Famspear 22:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Scalia's concurring opinion?[edit]

Perhaps someone with more credibility on this site than myself would be willing to add a section discussing Justice Scalia's concerns mentioned in his concurring opinion. He agreed with the holding, but disagreed rather strongly about the disallowance of the constitutionality arguments.