Stone v. Mississippi (1880) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Stone v. Mississippi to Stone v. Mississippi (1880)

2019-10-21T19:45:38Z

Admin moved page Stone v. Mississippi to Stone v. Mississippi (1880)

Admin at 19:37, 8 May 2019

2019-05-08T19:37:58Z

Morgannoel18 at 08:40, 28 October 2017

2017-10-28T08:40:02Z

Admin at 20:15, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T20:15:57Z

Nicole: Created page with "In 1867, the State of Mississippi chartered a lottery company in 1867 for a period of twenty-five years. However, in 1868 the state constitution was amended to forbid lotterie..."

2017-02-03T20:45:23Z

Created page with "In 1867, the State of Mississippi chartered a lottery company in 1867 for a period of twenty-five years. However, in 1868 the state constitution was amended to forbid lotterie..."

New page

In 1867, the State of Mississippi chartered a lottery company in 1867 for a period of twenty-five years. However, in 1868 the state constitution was amended to forbid lotteries. In ''Stone v. Mississippi'' (1880), Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite upheld the constitutional provision that nullified the charter, even though the charter constituted a contract. His reasoning was that the charter was nothing more than a license to enjoy a privilege conferred for the time and on the terms specified, and was subject to future legislative or constitutional control or withdrawal. The legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a state. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. Waite felt that supervision of health and morals is continuing in nature, that government is organized with a view to their preservation, and that it cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. He said that the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.

==== Robert W. Langran ====

SEE ALSO: [[Contract Clause]]; [[Dartmouth College v. Woodward]]; [[Fletcher v. Peck]]; [[Home Building and Loan v. Blaisdell]]; [[United States Trust Company v. New Jersey]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 8 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In 1867, the State of Mississippi chartered a lottery company in 1867 for a period of twenty-five years. However, in 1868 the state constitution was amended to forbid lotteries. In ''Stone v. Mississippi'' (1880), Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite upheld the constitutional provision that nullified the charter, even though the charter constituted a contract. His reasoning was that the charter was nothing more than a license to enjoy a privilege conferred for the time and on the terms specified, and was subject to future legislative or constitutional control or withdrawal. The legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a state. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. Waite felt that supervision of health and morals is continuing in nature, that government is organized with a view to their preservation, and that it cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. He said that the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.	+	In 1867, the State of Mississippi chartered a lottery company in 1867 for a period of twenty-five years. However, in 1868 the [[State Constitutions\|state constitution]] was amended to forbid lotteries. In ''Stone v. Mississippi'' (1880), Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite upheld the constitutional provision that nullified the charter, even though the charter constituted a contract. His reasoning was that the charter was nothing more than a license to enjoy a privilege conferred for the time and on the terms specified, and was subject to future legislative or constitutional control or withdrawal. The legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a state. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. Waite felt that supervision of health and morals is continuing in nature, that government is organized with a view to their preservation, and that it cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. He said that the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.

	==== Robert W. Langran ====		==== Robert W. Langran ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, 28 September 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:

	SEE ALSO: [[Contract Clause]]; [[Dartmouth College v. Woodward]]; [[Fletcher v. Peck]]; [[Home Building and Loan v. Blaisdell]]; [[United States Trust Company v. New Jersey]]		SEE ALSO: [[Contract Clause]]; [[Dartmouth College v. Woodward]]; [[Fletcher v. Peck]]; [[Home Building and Loan v. Blaisdell]]; [[United States Trust Company v. New Jersey]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:45, 21 October 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==== Robert W. Langran ====
 SEE ALSO: [[Contract Clause]]; [[Dartmouth College v. Woodward]]; [[Fletcher v. Peck]]; [[Home Building and Loan v. Blaisdell]]; [[United States Trust Company v. New Jersey]]
 [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]