Sentences with phrase «argue over doctrine»

They tend to argue over doctrine rather than contend biblically.

Not exact matches

His solution, following his own reading of Whitehead's doctrine of societies, is to argue that an organism or compound individual entity exists wherever one of its constituent subsocieties is dominant over the other subsocieties within the organism (PEW 215).

I used to be one of those pastors who argued over members and doctrines.

Another reason is that I'm just tired of the ministers arguing and fighting over members and doctrines.

We do not follow the Nicene Creed, where a bunch of leaders from differing sects argued and debated over the doctrine before finally strong - arming the rest into voting on a very confusing and depressing definition of God with direct disagreements from the Bible.

Within the past decade, banking and insurance companies have hired historical legal experts and spent a lot of time litigation over the US Federal Court system's power to issue equitable remedies such as the Mareva injunction and equitable liens to seize assets in federal litigation; the Alien Torts Act which has been used by international human rights organizations had its breadth restricted by use of 18th century views of the «law of nations» requiring recourse to historic writers like Hugo Grotius, and even administrative law has come under assault by dissents of Justice Thomas arguing that the «Chevron» doctrine of deference to agency interpretations of their own statutes should be set aside as being incompatible with the understanding of the American separation of powers doctrine as it was understood at the time of the country's founding.

Although neither statute nor case law clearly articulates that the lawyer's monopoly over the provision of legal services depends upon the legal profession's performing all legal services covered by that monopoly at reasonable cost, I argue that such relationship is dictated by constitutional doctrine because:

The above arguments are based upon the constitutional law doctrine of «structural argumentation» (see: Robin M. Elliott, «References, Structural Argumentation and the Organizing Principles of Canada's Constitution» (2000), 80 Canadian Bar Review 67, and decisions such as the, Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721, [1985] S.C.J. No. 36, the, Reference Re Secession of Québec, [1999] S.C.J. No. 4, [1998] 2 SCR 217, and the, Reference re Remuneration of Judges, [1997] S.C.J. No. 75, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, to argue that the need for access to the rule of law, and to constitutional rights and freedoms, dictate that law societies in Canada can not enforce a monopoly over the provision of legal services that enables their members to charge fees of whatever size they see fit.

The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the motion judge had not properly considered whether Ontario was the «forum of necessity» — i.e. the doctrine allowing the Court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute, even though there is no «real and substantial connection» with Ontario, because there is no other forum in which the plaintiff can reasonably seek relief (see our previous posts regarding the doctrine of «forum of necessity» here and here).