Talk:Muller v. Oregon

Latest comment: 1 year ago by HonoraryGlass in topic Possible edits
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muller v. Oregon. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Lede; which contract protections?

edit

It's unclear which section of the Constitution was used in the decision: the Freedom of contract inherent in due process clause of 14th Amendment or the Article I Contracts Clause. The revert to status quo is procedural in absence of good information, not a judgment on the merits. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Possible edits

edit

It seems that this article is written in a way that is quite confusing and possibly contains too much (or irrelevant) information, especially in the opening section. It also contains some stylistic issues (Quote formatting, for example, is inconsistent), along with general grammatical and sentence structure problems (The final sentence of the first paragraph contains four semicolons). I don't think I have adequate enough experience editing Wikipedia to make these substantial changes, so I wanted to make sure to make these issues aware to anyone who would possibly be able to fix them. HonoraryGlass (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply