WebThis was explicitly stated by this Court as the ground of the distinction which was made in Hawke v. Smith No. 1, supra, where, referring to the Davis Case, the Court said: 'As shown in the opinion in that case, Congress had itself recognized the referendum as part of the legislative authority of the state for the purpose stated.
Eighteenth Amendment: Speakeasy to Me - Academy 4SC
Webin the cases involving the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment. An effort will, therefore, be mate in this discussion to sum up the points made by the several briefs, and to indicate the setting of the conclu-sions expressed by the Court. The case of Hawke v. Smith presents 1 (I920, U. S.) 40 Sup. Ct. 495. The case of Hawke v. Smith is the Court's WebHawke v. Smith (No. 1) PETITIONER:George Hawke RESPONDENT:Harvey Smith, Ohio Secretary of State. LOCATION: DOCKET NO.: 582 DECIDED BY: White Court (1916-1921) LOWER COURT: ... DECIDED: Jun 01, 1920. Facts of the case. The Ohio General Assembly ratified the Eighteenth Amendment in January 1919, and was one of the thirty … timing of 1031 requirements
Leser v. Garnett :: 258 U.S. 130 (1922) :: Justia US Supreme Court …
Webin Article V, and is a delegated power. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 221, 227; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 348. It is a power to "amend," granted in general terms. In a series of decisions rendered soon after the Civil War, this court established the doctrine propounded by Mr. Lincoln in his first inaugural address, that the Union WebHawke v Smith (1920) - YouTube. Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #597. WebSmith, No. 2, 253 U.S. 231 , 40 Sup. Ct. 498; National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350, 386 , 40 S. Sup. Ct. 486, 588. The remaining contention is that the ratifying resolutions of Tennessee and of West Virginia are inoperative, because adopted in violation of the rules of legislative procedure prevailing in the respective states. park nicollet customer service phone number