HAWKE
v.
SMITH, SECRETARY OF STATE OF OHIO

U.S. | 1920-06-01
Nos. 2; No. 601
253 U.S. 231 Supreme Court of the United States (1920) Caution
Also reported at: 64 L. Ed. 877 · 40 S. Ct. 498 · 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1417 · SCDB 1919-055
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Day

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court.

This case presents the same question as that already decided in No. 582, ante, 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, 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.

For the reasons stated in our opinion in No. 582 the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio must be

Reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1932)
    …ates Senators under Article I, section 3, prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment. It may act as a ratifying body, as in the case of proposed amendments to the Constitution under Article V. Hawke v. Smith, No. [*366] 1, supra; Id., No. 2, 253 U. S. 231; Leser v. Garnett, 258 U. S. 130, 137. It may act as a consenting body, as in relation to the acquisition of lands by the United States under Article I, section 8, paragraph 17. Wherever the term ‘ legislature ’ is used in the Constitution it is nec…
  • Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1922)
    …nction of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the Federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State. Hawke v. Smith, No. 1, 253 U. S. 221; Hawke v. Smith, No. 2, 253 U. S. 231; National Prohibition Cases, 253 U. S. 350, 386. 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 resp…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw