Talk:Kleppe v. New Mexico

Article improvement
Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, is GA-class and may contain useful material for this article. Montanabw (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll look for a better source for the numbers. That seemed real low to me when I saw it. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We are actually thrashing this out at Mustang... basically, I think you can go with the census at the time of the 1971 Act. and maybe this  BTW, have you a link to that law review source???   Montanabw (talk)  07:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I can email it to you, but I don't post links to either WL or Lexis where I have logged in. GregJackP   Boomer!   13:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Understood, go ahead, I think you have my email already, but if it bounces, do a message through WP and I'll reply back.  Montanabw (talk)  19:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kleppe v. New Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150616021942/http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wh_b.html to http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wh_b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Overruled Dred Scott v Sanford?
What did this case have to do with Dred Scott v Sanford? 99.197.202.188 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It apparently has something to do with the Property Clause and police powers. See https://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause . This should really be touched upon in the article. KingAntenor (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The text of the decision does not mention Dred Scott. It is either an uncited interpretation of the law or even a racist joke (assuming good faith and thinking it's the former).  The adding user User_talk:Fluffy89502 has been warned many times against adding unfounded interpretations of Supreme Court cases.  It has been removed, and I will be removing it from Dred Scott as well. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In Dred Scott v. Sandford the editor has provided a citation (unlinked but found online) which was published as . The article is about the Dred Scott case and does indeed include a reference to this case, but it references it only to say that by the time of Kleppe no vestige of the property rights views of Roger B. Taney (the majority opinion writer of Dred Scott) remained.  The article does not imply that Kleppe overruled Dred Scott. (The only thing I can be thankful for seeing it there is that otherwise I would not have found this wonderful case) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)