Talk:Bradwell v. Illinois

Untitled
might be worth adding that slaughterhouse cases were decided by a much closer majority... It's potentially interesting that several of the justices arguing that 14th amendment applied to the butchers felt that it definitely didn't apply to women. Mjforbes666 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to take the exclamation mark off the end of one of the paragraphs, but when I previewed it I saw a picture of a...mouth...a big...picture...of a mouth...

...I've decided to let the powers that be deal with that. 76.211.213.194 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article, the word 'regulable' is used, but is not actually a word. any idea what the original writer meant to say? "...Fourteenth Amendment did not include the right to practice a profession, so it was properly *REGULABLE* by the states." ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.194.217 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

'Regulable' is a word. It's legal-speak which means that the Constitution allows Congress to enact a certain kind of regulation or legislation in a particular way. In this context, the author meant that because the 14th Amendment, according to the Court at that time, did not recognize a right to practice a profession, states could allow some people to practice a profession and bar others from doing so, i.e. states could regulate in this area.

This decision came down in December 1, 1872, not in 1873. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.128.226 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)