Talk:Nonacquiescence

Confusing

This article fails to distinguish between two extremely different concepts of nonacquiescence -- first, the government refusing to treat a court ruling as a binding precedent in future cases; and second, the government refusing to comply with the judgment of the courts in a particular case. The latter is extremely rare and the Andrew Jackson example may be nearly unique (and it is hard to imagine it happening today). The failure to explain the difference between these two makes the whole article highly confusing and misleading. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it still feels like a weird article a dozen years later. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Worcester v. Georgia

I've deleted the paragraph that referred to the Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia as an example of nonacquiescence. See the article about the case: first, the holding in the case was described incorrectly here; and second, the Court in that case did not actually order the President (or any Executive Branch official) to do anything, so there was nothing for the President to acquiesce (or not) to. At most, this might be cited as an example of a popular legend about the relationship between the branches, but it would require a more substantial rewrite to serve this purpose. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"notorious"

implies a value judgment and is non-neutral. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Kafkaesque"

discovering to their chagrin that their victory over the government is an empty one is hardly Kafkaesque. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:89DA:FC2A:283A:498A (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

-Being unable to enjoy your rights after one branch of government refuses to comply with the ruling of another is absolutely an example that could be considered Kafkaesque.

Definition of Kafkaesque

of, relating to, or suggestive of Franz Kafka or his writings especially : having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality Kafkaesque bureaucratic delays

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Kafkaesque --45.88.8.115 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I added the case Ex Parte Merryman

I added the case as an example of nonacquiescence by the executive branch not complying with the judicial branch, in this instance during the U.S. Civil War. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

But you added several paragraphs which were far longer than the existing article, which violates WP:UNDUE. This is an article about nonacquiescence, not Merryman. Merryman is discussed in some of the scholarly literature on nonacquiescence, so I agree it should be mentioned in this article, but in a much shorter fashion that merely points readers in the direction of the existing article dedicated to that case. That's why I replaced your edit. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

U.S.-specific

All three sections of this article are U.S.-specific.

This is especially problematic in the history section beginning with "The issue of nonacquiescence first came to national prominence". The nation this section is talking about is not defined within the section.

Maybe we should changes this article's title to "Nonacquiescence in U.S. constitutional scholarship" or we should add more on nonacquiescence in other countries' constitutional theory? Analphabetical (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Or we can just narrow the scope of the lead sentence to U.S. law. This issue appears to arise only in U.S. law because of the unique nature of American common law. Most countries don't follow stare decisis and they don't guarantee the equal protection of the laws, so the issue never comes up. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm in favor of narrowing the scope of this article to U.S. law. Analphabetical (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)