Talk:Medellín v. Texas

A fact from Medellín v. Texas appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,519 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in Medellín v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the U.S. President lacks the power to enforce decisions of the International Court of Justice?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/March.

Wikipedia

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Minority

Did any of the dissenters write an opinion? It's not in the article if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. While the article's exposition of the court's ruling is pretty well laid out, a discussion of the dissent should've been included. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to write a description of the dissent (if there was one). The article can be edited by anyone. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breyer wrote the dissent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BestDelegateDotCom (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say how six of the nine Supreme Court Justices voted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.1.175 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the info box. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I don't think the name of this article should be "Medellín v. Texas". I think it has to be "Medellin v. Texas" (without the accent on the "i"). Both the syllabus and the opinion (here they are) are entitled "MEDELLIN v. TEXAS". Whether the guy uses an "í" or an "i" in his name personally isn't relevant, because this article is about the Supreme Court opinion, not about Medellín himself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very late response, but I agree. Of course, I started the article under the name Medellin v. Texas in October 2007 only to have it redirected in March 2008, so I am a bit biased. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Dred Scott v. Sandford is titled like this even though the guy's name is "Sanford". So it's the court's spelling that matters and not the person's. --208.80.119.67 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Medellín v. Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080417001500/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5i0V7A97KgoY8Goz9la5CWe8bm7ewD8VKM7300 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i0V7A97KgoY8Goz9la5CWe8bm7ewD8VKM7300

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]