The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that under the criminal statutes in force during US Chief Justice John Marshall's tenure, slave trading was a misdemeanor but insurance fraud was punishable by death?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
Maybe need a transition sentence from the Federalist papers Hamilton quote to the Constitutional Convention line. Obviously one leads to the other, but transitioning it more directly would improve the paragraph's clarity.
"and exclusive jurisdiction over all other federal crimes" - are these the ones you mentioned earlier, or not?
I'm not sure I see the source of the misunderstanding. The exclusive jurisdiction was only over crimes that the district courts couldn't try (thus: "exclusive"). So, not. Savidan14:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any interesting/noteworthy examples of "single-subject criminal statutes"?
Before going into examples of the use of the 'writ of error', could you write a brief description (either here or in the lead) of what it is? I have a rough idea of it... but something more substantive would be helpful.
You include a pretty massive chunk of the dissent in Bollman. Entirely necessary?
I didnt include any of the dissents argument in the merits, really. Only the fact of the dissent, the identity of the dissenters, amd the explanation of the retroactive dissent in Burford. Due to the rarity of pulished dissents during this period, I consider any dissent notable. As for the blockquote, I suppose it could be replaced, but I like the way he worded it and think it tells much about the deliberative process of the court during this period. Savidan14:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious why you have Prof. Freedman's opinion here on the issue of section 14. Any other scholarly opinions on this question?
there probably are others that i would include in the Bollman article. Since Friedman is the only one who devotes this much coverage to the issue, afaiaw, I think it is fair to summarize his views only. Savidan14:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the subsection on Ex parte Watkins, you explain what "capias ad satisfaciendum" was, but not "capias pro fine". Those aren't well-known writs, so a short description would help the context of this section.
I think it would be preferable to explain in clear terms what an "assimilative crime" is, rather than post the whole paragraph trying to define it. Essentially, I feel a shorter description is sufficient.
ive added a short description but i think the specific text is important. For example it shows the specific places where it applied. Savidan16:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Including a whole paragraph on the 1948 amendment on this subject seems to fall outside the scope of the article. Additionally, the quote from Sharpnack is difficult to understand; it has a ton of big vocabulary in it. The average reader may not know what's going on there.
i view it as within the scope bc the amendment finally undid the effect of the marshall court decision. As for the quote, i didnt have much else to choose from. That is the sentence where sharpnack discusses the effect of marshall's decision. Savidan16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does any professor argue or does any other law review article discuss, the issue about federal common law crimes?
of course yes. Ive chosen this article because of the depth of treatment and because it contextualizes the topic to the marshall court era. The intent was not to take on the whole topic of common law crime, only to explain the minimum context of the marshall court's specific contribution. Savidan16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the 'False statements' section, if you're going to include that "Justice McLean dissented", I want to know what was interesting or noteworthy about his dissent.
I think the research in this article is incredible, and it is extraordinarily comprehensive. After addressing the few points I brought up, I'd be glad to promote this to GA.
Thanks for responding to my comments. I think you've addressed my small concerns; I'm moving to promote this to GA status. Good job with this article. Hoping the best with your bar results, Lord Roem (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
