Sentences with phrase «as a constitutional republic»

Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and / or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are «natural born citizens» under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants» constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic.

These United States were designed as a Constitutional Republic.

The USA was designed as a Constitutional Republic, with checks - and - balances between the branches of the federal government, and also division of power between federal state and local governments.

I would nitpick to note that many of the monarchial dynasties aren't really all that old or long (many of the countries of the Middle East are the product of post-WWI diplomacy between the colonial powers that prevailed in WWI with little local input and the dynasties are often younger than the U.S.A. as a constitutional republic.)

The United States was founded as a constitutional republic with an elected legislature and executive, not a dictatorship.

Not exact matches

The title of Metaxas» latest book, If You Can Keep It (Viking), is a reference to Benjamin Franklin's response to a woman who asked him, as he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, «Dr Franklin, what have you given us, a monarchy or a republic?»

Historian Perry Miller characterized revival as «the engine of the Republic,» a phenomenon that played a central role in transforming a somewhat loose constitutional federation into a republican union.

When the nation was established as a democratic republic, the people of the former English colonies, acting in their various constitutional conventions, transferred all governing power to their states and to the federal government, reserving for themselves only certain rights and powers they previously claimed to enjoy as subjects of the British Crown.

They felt that America would only function as a small government constitutional republic if people were a functioning, moral, Christian people.

«As an expert on the history of our founders and the founding documents, Sen. Loudermilk understands that the only path to fundamentally restoring our constitutional republic is over the heads of leadership in both parties,» Madison Project President Drew Ryun said in a release.

Constitutional Republics (especially those that used the U.S. Constitution in part or wholesale as a Constitution model) are governments where the highest law of the land are laws that restrict the government (in the U.S. the government is the only legal entity that can commit illegal offenses against the constitution).

The British Monarchy is a Constitutional Monarchy meaning it is much like Japan's system in which they play a purely symbolic role and we activate just as if we were a complete republic.

«Whether the 1st defendant (Buhari) after compliance with the 1999 constitutional provision, the Electoral Act and the guidelines to the extent of winning the 2015 presidential election as the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, need other further qualification to contest the 2019 presidential election.

But then the President of the Republic of Ghana, who has sworn a constitutional oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of Ghana as by law established, grants an interview to the press after the decision of the Court on the same day.

The United Mexican States, commonly known as Mexico, is a federal constitutional republic in North America.

The goal was to teach students that America is a democracy, not a constitutional republic, thereby teaching socialism as a better way.

The third part of the proposal would require the Legislature «to ensure that students enrolled in public education understand and are prepared to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a constitutional republic.»

I suggest a more accurate statement would be that America is a Constitutional Republic (based on inalienable rights) undergoing a tug - of - war with a «Progressive» wing that is trying to re-create it as a Socialist Democracy (without any protected rights, only what the majority will allow).

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

In addition, on the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

-- the provision «the following persons shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated)» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law;

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

To recognise that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland or settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 22 - 347) of Item 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

As suggested by Pollicino and Fabbrini, a convincing explanation might be that the CJEU has chosen to follow the tradition of dialogue and confrontation that brings the two Courts together, instead of trying to give a definition of the constitutional identity of the Italian Republic.

If the CJEU would have openly recognized the interpretation of the legality principle as part of the constitutional identity of the Italian Republic pursuant to Art. 4 (2) TEU, it would have created a precedent to rely on while dealing with similar questions in the future (see L.S. Rossi), since it would have considerably widened the possibility of the ICC to make recourse to its controlimiti doctrine.

The protection of communications between attorney and client ultimately relies on fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to freedom and confidentiality of correspondence and of every other form of communication (article 15 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic) and the right of defence (article 24 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic).

On the contrary, the paper suggests that both the President of the Republic and the Constitutional Court have endeavoured to emphasize the axiological overlap between the Italian Constitution and the project of European integration, considering Italy's membership to the EU as the best way to fulfil the Constitution's mandate.

[3] On the basis of the applicant's cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court by order dated 9.5.2012, No. 6 Ads 18/2012 -82, reversed in accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the interpretation of European Union law on the Court and presented him the following questions: 6 Ads 18/2012 First Excludes Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes nazaměstna not persons and their families moving within the Community (Regulation of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems), from its scope ratione personae citizen of the Czech Republic, which, in circumstances such as those in the present case, before 1 First 1993 subject to the laws governing pension defunct State (Czech and Slovak Federal Republic), Acting in accordance with these periods sčlánkem 20 of the Treaty concluded on the 29th 10th 1992 between the Czech and Slovak republikouo Social Security registered in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (Annex II of the European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004) are regarded as periods Slovak Republic apodlevnitrostátního rules created by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic at the same time as the time Czech Republic?

If the answer to question 2 positive: 3 Prevents European Union law by the national court, the highest court of the state in the area of administrative justice, against whose decisions are not permissible remedies, was in accordance ¡ svnitrostátním law bound in law brought by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, where it appears that such assessments are Acting in accordance with Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

Smlouvyo 4, paragraph 2 of the European Union and Article 3, paragraph 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (or Article 4 of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004), the fact that the Czech authorities could zaokolností what vprojednávané things, provide preferential treatment (kdávce compensatory allowance at the age where the amount of benefits granted under Article 20 of the Treaty concluded 29th 10th 1992 between the Czech and the Slovak Republic on Social Security and Council Regulation (EC) No 1408 to 1471 (Regulation č.883 / 2004) lower than the dose that would be received, if the pension calculated under the laws of the Czech Republic), only citizens of the Czech Republic, if ktakovému treatment creates a fundamental right to security in old age unloaded by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic specifically in relation kdobám pension acquired vzaniklé CSFR and perceived as part of the national identity, and, if such treatment is stonarušit right of free movement of workers as a fundamental right of the Union, a situation kdybyposkytnutí reciprocal treatment accorded to nationals of EU Member States kteřítakézískali vzaniklé CSFR equivalent of pension security led kvýznamnému threat from the financial stability of the pension fund of the Czech Republic?