HAWKE V. SMITH
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Justia & Oyez |
| Citation | HAWKE V. SMITH, 253 U.S. 231 (1920) |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1920 |
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF OHIO
The ratification of the proposed Nineteenth Amendment by the Legislature of Ohio cannot be referred to the electors of the state; the Ohio Constitution, in requiring such a referendum, is inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Hawke v. Smith, No. 1, ante, 253 U. S. 221. 100 Ohio St. 540 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
This case presents the same question as that already decided in No. 582, ante, 253 U. S. 221, the only difference being that the amendment involved is the proposed Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to women. The Supreme Court of Ohio, upon the authority of its decision in Hawke v. Smith, (No. 582), ante, 253 U. S. 221, held that the Constitution of the state requiring such submission by a referendum to the people, did not violate Article V of the federal Constitution, and for that reason rendered a like judgment as in No. 582.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State of Idaho v. Freeman
...S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922); National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350, 40 S.Ct. 486, 64 L.Ed. 946 (1920); Hawke v. Smith, No. 2, 253 U.S. 231, 40 S.Ct. 498, 64 L.Ed. 877 (1920); Hawke v. Smith, No. 1, 253 U.S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 495, 64 L.Ed. 871 (1920); Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S.Ct......
-
Initiative Petition No. 364, In re
...people, which it was assumed would voice the will of the people." Id. at 226-27, 40 S.Ct. at 497. See also Hawke v. Smith, No. 2, 253 U.S. 231, 40 S.Ct. 498, 64 L.Ed. 877 (1920), concerning the same question but involving the Nineteenth Amendment extending the right of suffrage to The Oklah......
-
Dyer v. Blair
...sought to be imposed by the people of a state. Hawke v. Smith, No. 1, 253 U. S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 495, 64 L.Ed. 871; Hawke v. Smith, No. 2, 253 U.S. 231, 40 S.Ct. 498, 64 L.Ed. 877; National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350, 386, 40 S.Ct. 486, 588, 64 L.Ed. 258 U.S. at 136-137, 42 S.Ct. at 217. ......
-
Harisay v. Clarno
... ... Hawke v. Smith No. 1 , 253 U.S. 221, 40 S. Ct. 495, 64 L. Ed. 871 (1920). The issue in Hawke No. 1 was whether the voters of the State of Ohio could ... ...
-
Principles Governing the Interpretation and Exercise of Article v pOwers
...approved a "virtually identical" bill on July 9, 1973 ( Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1973: Vol. 29, 78). 221 Hawke v. Smith, No. 2, 253 U.S. 231, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 139, 1920 National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350, 1920 United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217, 1934 ...