Login

u/After-Professional-8

r/Ohio r/Delco r/MapPorn r/law r/UpliftingNews r/Colorado r/Delaware r/imaginarymaps r/fivethirtyeight r/Africa r/LGBTlegislation r/Queerdefensefront r/COPYRIGHT r/mockreferendum r/AskHistorians r/Nebraska r/HistoryWhatIf r/illinois r/LGBTnews r/IdeologyPolls r/polls r/Botswana r/texas r/news r/Louisiana r/SampleSize r/Virginia r/maryland r/LeftistSouthAfrica r/DavesRedistricting r/Positive_News r/truths r/worldnews r/Pennsylvania r/missouri r/imaginaryelections r/mapporncirclejerk
▲ 4 r/HistoryWhatIf

If SCOTUS had agreed to hear Baker v. Nelson in 1972, in which petitioners argued that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, do you think at least one (or more) of the justices would have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage?

In 1972, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appealed case from the Minnesota Supreme Court, in which petitioners argued the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage under the First, Eight, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. SCOTUS denied the appeal by saying, "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." Source: (Baker v. Nelson).

If the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case, do you think any of the justices would have agreed with the petitioners?

reddit.com
u/After-Professional-8 — 2 days ago
▲ 1 r/AskHistorians

If SCOTUS had agreed to hear Baker v. Nelson in 1972, in which petitioners argued that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, do you think, based on justices’ previous opinions, at least one (or more) of the justices would have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage?

In 1972, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appealed case from the Minnesota Supreme Court, in which petitioners argued the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage under the First, Eight, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. SCOTUS denied the appeal by saying, "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." Source: (Baker v. Nelson).

If the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case, do you think any of the justices would have agreed with the petitioners?

reddit.com
u/After-Professional-8 — 2 days ago
▲ 1.0k r/law

Could all U.S state voter ID mandates be held unconstitutional under the poll tax amendment?

The poll tax amendment states:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

One could argue that if a state wants to have Voter ID, they have to give every voter a free voting ID to abide by the poll tax amendment.

en.wikipedia.org
u/After-Professional-8 — 16 days ago