翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Evante
・ Evans Shire
・ Evans Site
・ Evans Site (New Town, North Dakota)
・ Evans Soligo
・ Evans Starzinger
・ Evans Station
・ Evans Strait
・ Evans syndrome
・ Evans technique
・ Evans The Death
・ Evans Township, Marshall County, Illinois
・ Evans Tuning
・ Evans v United Kingdom
・ Evans v. Berkeley
Evans v. Cornman
・ Evans v. Eaton
・ Evans v. Eaton (1818)
・ Evans v. Eaton (1822)
・ Evans v. Hettich
・ Evans v. Jordan
・ Evans v. Michigan
・ Evans VP-1 Volksplane
・ Evans VP-2
・ Evans Wadongo
・ Evans Wise
・ Evans Woollen
・ Evans' Regiment of Militia
・ Evans, California
・ Evans, Colorado


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Evans v. Cornman : ウィキペディア英語版
Evans v. Cornman

''Evans v. Cornman'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that to deny people living in federal enclaves the right to vote is a violation of their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
== Background ==
Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 8, Clause 18, allows Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings."
The rights of residents of such federal enclaves was argued in ''Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund of Louisville'', wherein the residents of an enclave sued to be exempted from certain taxation by the City of Louisville, arguing that the annexation of the enclave by the city violated the "exclusive legislation" clause and the city's claim to the area was unconstitutional. This was rejected and it was ruled that the enclaves continue to be part of the states of which they were a part and that "A state may conform its municipal structures to its own plan, so long as the state does not interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction within the federal area by the United States."
In 1963, a Maryland Appeals Court ruled in ''Royer v. Board of Election Supervisors'', that residents of federal jurisdictions were not entitled to vote in Maryland.〔http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/JURISDICst.html〕
Land in Montgomery County, Maryland was purchased for the National Cancer Institute in the 1930s and was officially made a US jurisdiction in 1953. Both before and after the cession of the land, residents of the complex registered and voted in Montgomery County without incident. Then, in October, 1968, the Permanent Board of Registry of Montgomery County, Maryland, citing ''Royer v. Board of Elections Supervisors'', announced that persons living on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) federal reservation or enclave located within its geographical boundaries did not meet the residency requirement of Art. 1, 1, of the Maryland Constitution. These people were therefore not qualified to vote as residents of Maryland. Several residents of the enclave sued the Permanent Board, requesting that a three-judge Federal District Court be convened to enjoin as unconstitutional this application of the Maryland voter residency law.
The Federal District Court issued a temporary injunction allowing residents to vote in the 1968 elections. In the actual argument of the case, the District Court held that to deny the residents the right to vote was to deny them equal protection of the laws, whereafter the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Evans v. Cornman」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.