Baker v Carr

Baker v Carr - no such questions to be answered in this...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Baker v. Carr 1901 I. Facts a. Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. b. II. Legal Questions presented a. Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? III. Answers a. IV. Reasons (by ___) a. In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. V. Dissent reasons VI. Concurring reasons Notes...
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

Baker v Carr - no such questions to be answered in this...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online