Talk:Cooper v. Aaron

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sgrey188.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
This article may take me some time to write, so please be patient. --Eastlaw 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Critical response
The sentence "One counterpoint to this, however, is since the Supreme Court is the primary expositor of the law, then for the sake of clarity, predictability, and uniformity, different branches of government should not feel free to follow radically, or even subtly, different interpretations of the Constitution.'" appears to be original research. Has any citable lawyer or academic made this counterpoint? Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence now (despite the later addition of a reference to Martin v. Hunter's Lessee), as it sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS. Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible "Background of the case" section error
A sentence reads "...passed a law relieving children from mandatory attendance at segregated schools." Is this correct? Didn't the law exempt students from attending INTEGRATED schools. It makes no sense.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nullification ineffective?
Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective.

The lay reader will probably interpret "ineffective" here as "ineffectual" or "futile." I'd propose replacing it with "invalid." I'm not an attorney, so I thought I'd ask before changing it.

Zuky79 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Concurrence
The section on the concurrence seems to be largely analysis and criticism; beyond noting that there was a concurrence, the section is entirely devoid of factual information. I think this needs to be significantly rewritten; the analysis might be better in the Criticism section (assuming it is properly cited from other sources). 209.165.166.193 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)