Talk:Reid v. Covert

	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.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Treaty" vs "Executive Agreement"

I'm not a lawyer, and this article is creating confusion in my attempt to understand. Another article points to Reid v. Covert as the case that established that a Treaty cannot give to the Federal Government a power that it does not already have based on its enumerated powers.

This article also mentions "Treaty", but does not mention a treaty as defined in the Constitution - an agreement made by the President and ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. From my reading, the case seems to be mostly about whether the UCMJ can be applied to a non-military person for a crime committed outside the territory of the United States.

If this is truly about a "Treaty", please provide a source as to what the Treaty is and when the U.S. Senate passed it. If there was no treaty, then mention of treaties in these articles is creative interpretations.69.37.85.3 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the case itself did not have to do with "Treaty", but the court's opinion talked about "Treaty" from the Treaty Clause of the constitution. So the article is correct. --208.80.119.67 (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some missing key details

I found the part at the end of the article which reads "...the case represents the only time a lawyer lost in the Supreme Court of the United States but prevailed on rehearing." to be missing context. Their appears to be no explanation in the article as to how he lost in the Supreme Court at first but later prevailed on rehearing meaning that sentence refers to something not explained previosuely in the article. The article really needs some further details about the case including a summery of the events that lead to the military wife's conviction in a military court, how the her conviction was challenge, how her lawyer lost in the Supreme court at first but later prevailed on rehearing. --Cab88 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification

"Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.34.185 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrial

The article states that Ms. Covert could not be retried but does not explain why. If the military court did not have jurisdiction, then I would think that a new trial by a civilian court would not constitute double jeopardy. Why couldn't she be retried?Bill (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]