Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
True, but the holding of the Loving case was that a VA statute that criminalized interracial marriage was unconstitutional. That was the holding. The rest is dicta. Now subsequent cases may have different holdings, but the holding of Loving is that a statute that criminalizes interracial marriage is unconstitutional on both EP and fundamental rights/DP grounds.
|
People think that Gibbons v. Ogden speaks broadly to the principles behind the Dormant Commerce Clause, but it turns out that it's just about ferryboats -- the rest is dicta. Marbury v. Madison? Not really about judicial review at all! It's about the procedures by which judges are appointed to the District of the District of Columbia.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
