74:
53:
173:
152:
183:
22:
324:
but later prevailed on rehearing meaning that sentence refers to something not explained previosuely in the article. The article really needs some further details about the case including a summery of the events that lead to the military wife's conviction in a military court, how the her conviction was challenge, how her lawyer lost in the
Supreme court at first but later prevailed on rehearing. --
323:
I found the part at the end of the article which reads "...the case represents the only time a lawyer lost in the
Supreme Court of the United States but prevailed on rehearing." to be missing context. Their appears to be no explanation in the article as to how he lost in the Supreme Court at first
283:
This article also mentions "Treaty", but does not mention a treaty as defined in the
Constitution - an agreement made by the President and ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. From my reading, the case seems to be mostly about whether the UCMJ can be applied to a non-military person for a
279:
I'm not a lawyer, and this article is creating confusion in my attempt to understand. Another article points to Reid v. Covert as the case that established that a Treaty cannot give to the
Federal Government a power that it does not already have based on its enumerated powers.
369:
The article states that Ms. Covert could not be retried but does not explain why. If the military court did not have jurisdiction, then I would think that a new trial by a civilian court would not constitute double jeopardy. Why couldn't she be
287:
If this is truly about a "Treaty", please provide a source as to what the Treaty is and when the U.S. Senate passed it. If there was no treaty, then mention of treaties in these articles is creative
134:
303:
It seems that the case itself did not have to do with "Treaty", but the court's opinion talked about "Treaty" from the Treaty Clause of the constitution. So the article is correct. --
274:
354:
403:
293:
398:
297:
124:
265:. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.
262:
100:
81:
58:
235:
393:
312:
86:
269:
413:
225:
350:
304:
333:
90:
418:
358:
318:
289:
408:
200:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
33:
266:
252:
196:
157:
308:
379:
39:
346:
338:
8:
375:
21:
95:
258:
329:
371:
387:
73:
52:
343:"Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
364:
325:
188:
172:
151:
182:
284:
crime committed outside the territory of the United States.
201:
85:, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to
257:
For some time I have been working on revisions to the
178:
385:
263:Knowledge:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1
261:article. I finally posted it and have a PR at
109:Knowledge:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
404:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
112:Template:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
93:. If you would like to participate, you can
399:Low-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
19:
386:
194:This article is within the scope of
99:attached to this page, or visit the
82:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
15:
394:C-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
204:and the subjects encompassed by it.
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
14:
430:
275:"Treaty" vs "Executive Agreement"
181:
171:
150:
72:
51:
20:
230:This article has been rated as
129:This article has been rated as
313:04:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
1:
359:07:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
298:02:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
380:02:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
334:22:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
7:
414:Low-importance law articles
115:U.S. Supreme Court articles
10:
435:
236:project's importance scale
229:
210:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
166:
128:
67:
46:
419:WikiProject Law articles
319:Some missing key details
270:16:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
213:Template:WikiProject Law
106:U.S. Supreme Court cases
79:This article is part of
59:U.S. Supreme Court cases
28:This article is rated
409:C-Class law articles
267:PedanticallySpeaking
87:Supreme Court cases
34:content assessment
349:comment added by
259:Bricker Amendment
253:Bricker Amendment
250:
249:
246:
245:
242:
241:
145:
144:
141:
140:
426:
361:
288:interpretations.
218:
217:
214:
211:
208:
191:
186:
185:
175:
168:
167:
162:
154:
147:
146:
135:importance scale
117:
116:
113:
110:
107:
98:
96:edit the article
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
434:
433:
429:
428:
427:
425:
424:
423:
384:
383:
367:
344:
341:
321:
277:
255:
215:
212:
209:
206:
205:
197:WikiProject Law
187:
180:
160:
114:
111:
108:
105:
104:
94:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
432:
422:
421:
416:
411:
406:
401:
396:
366:
363:
340:
337:
320:
317:
316:
315:
276:
273:
254:
251:
248:
247:
244:
243:
240:
239:
232:Low-importance
228:
222:
221:
219:
193:
192:
176:
164:
163:
161:Low‑importance
155:
143:
142:
139:
138:
131:Low-importance
127:
121:
120:
118:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
431:
420:
417:
415:
412:
410:
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
391:
389:
382:
381:
377:
373:
362:
360:
356:
352:
351:75.210.34.185
348:
336:
335:
331:
327:
314:
310:
306:
305:208.80.119.67
302:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
285:
281:
272:
271:
268:
264:
260:
237:
233:
227:
224:
223:
220:
203:
199:
198:
190:
184:
179:
177:
174:
170:
169:
165:
159:
156:
153:
149:
148:
136:
132:
126:
123:
122:
119:
102:
97:
92:
91:Supreme Court
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
368:
345:— Preceding
342:
339:Ratification
322:
286:
282:
278:
256:
231:
216:law articles
195:
130:
101:project page
80:
40:WikiProjects
202:legal field
388:Categories
290:69.37.85.3
189:Law portal
370:retried?
347:unsigned
89:and the
365:Retrial
234:on the
133:on the
30:C-class
36:scale.
326:Cab88
376:talk
372:Bill
355:talk
330:talk
309:talk
294:talk
226:Low
207:Law
158:Law
125:Low
390::
378:)
357:)
332:)
311:)
296:)
374:(
353:(
328:(
307:(
292:(
238:.
137:.
103:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
