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. [1] 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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 [2]. 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)