Sentences with phrase «as constitutional law»

These cataloging systems produce hierarchical concept frameworks placing broad legal concepts such as constitutional law and environmental law at the top and then drill down from those broad concepts through successive levels of increasingly narrow subtopics.

He works with clients to help them solve complex problems in areas as diverse as constitutional law, corporate commercial litigation, class actions, professional discipline, and labour and employment law.

Starting in July 2016, prospective lawyers taking the Massachusetts bar exam will be tested not just on traditional topics such as constitutional law, torts and property, but also on access to justice.

There they receive scaled - down versions of first - year law classes such as constitutional law, criminal law, civil procedure, criminal procedure and torts.

Not exact matches

Indeed, the courts are more likely to focus on whether there is «an adequate factual basis for singling out these specific countries as distinct sources of risk,» Richard Pildes, a professor of Constitutional Law at New York University, told Business Insider in an email.

Protestors have complained against changes to the constitutional court, surveillance reforms as well as changes to media law.

Litigation over the order will likely continue until the government provides «an adequate factual basis for singling out these specific countries as distinct sources of risk,» Richard Pildes, a professor of Constitutional Law at New York University, told Business Insider in an email.

The law, known as Senate Bill 4, is slated to take effect Sept. 1, but has been challenged in court by rights organizations and localities that say the law infringes on local governments» constitutional rights, and will sow fear through immigrant communities by dissuading people from reporting crimes or testifying as witnesses out of fear they will be deported.

According to Stephen Scott, a constitutional law professor at McGill University, the original point of the law was to ensure courts in colonial America had the same traditional powers as those in England.

Louis Seidman, a constitutional - law expert and professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, told Business Insider in July that whether Trump can pardon himself is «very questionable» as «a matter of constitutional morality.&raqlaw expert and professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, told Business Insider in July that whether Trump can pardon himself is «very questionable» as «a matter of constitutional morality.&raqLaw Center, told Business Insider in July that whether Trump can pardon himself is «very questionable» as «a matter of constitutional morality.»

Justice Douglas» opinion struck that law down as inconsistent with a Constitutional right of privacy, notwithstanding that the U.S. Constitution nowhere mentions any such right, let alone even using the word «privacy».

Now, some constitutional law purists (not to mention a number of criminal law professors) maintain that the criminal law power should not be used for matters of regulation as opposed to outright prohibitions based on grounds of morality.

As a matter of constitutional law, the federal government has ample authority in this area.

«We disagree with this decision, which is wrong as a matter of constitutional law,» he said last week, according to CNN.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.

In dissent, Justice Potter Stewart described the Connecticut law he believed constitutional as «uncommonly silly»» which, in retrospect, was a phrase he could have used to describe Griswold v. Connecticut, adding «pernicious» to «silly.»

«Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as a formal recognition in marriage is concerned,» wrote Scalia.

In particular, the declaration references the charter's «principles of constitutional contractual citizenship» and «freedom of movement, property ownership, mutual solidarity and defense, as well as principles of justice and equality before the law,» in regards to Muslims and non-Muslims.

Speaking in Westminster Hall in 2010, Pope Benedict XVI spoke movingly about Britain's heritage of constitutional government: «Your common law tradition serves as the basis of legal systems in many parts of the world, and your particular vision of the respective remains an inspiration to many across the globe».

«The Greens do have such rights,» Heaton's ruling stated, «but are unlikely to prevail as to their constitutional claims because the preventive care coverage regulations... are neutral laws of general applicability which are rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective.»

Even if all parties were to agree that American republicanism is not classically liberal, or that classical liberalism really is ontologically indifferent, or that the laws of nature and of nature's God are the foundation of constitutional order and that these are the same thing as natural law — even if, in other words, all parties were to agree to some version of a pristine American founding harmonious in principle with the truth of God and the human being — returning to the first principles of the eighteenth century isn't much more realistic than a return to the first principles of the thirteenth.

A fellow at Ricochet recently linked to an old 2003 interview where he seems to defend anti-sodomy laws, not on the mere (Thomas / Scalia) «they're constitutional» grounds, but as good laws in and of themselves.

Human Rights NGOs like the Centre for Governance and Development, Citizens Coalition for Constitutional Change, Human Rights Commission and Mazingira Institute, Law Society and the NGO Council helped to popularize the gospel of accountability as a culture of democracy.

As an academic specializing in contemporary Japan (law and constitutional politics), and as a member of a partly Christian (Catholic) Japanese family for close to forty years, perhaps I might add a few facts and comments for perspectivAs an academic specializing in contemporary Japan (law and constitutional politics), and as a member of a partly Christian (Catholic) Japanese family for close to forty years, perhaps I might add a few facts and comments for perspectivas a member of a partly Christian (Catholic) Japanese family for close to forty years, perhaps I might add a few facts and comments for perspective.

You eliminate the mandate by saying there can be no such mandate and you call the penalty that the law calls a penalty a tax because a tax in the absence of a mandate would be okay, and since there is no longer a mandate, it is possible to reimagine the penalty as a tax and therefore the new law without the mandate and the penalty, but with an optional tax, is constitutional even though that is not the law that Congress actually passed.

After Smith, the government would be free to penalize, punish, or prevent the exercise of religion without serious constitutional scrutiny so long as the law applied to nonreligious entities as well.

And so, precisely because the rules of constitutional law create some faint possibility of gaining special consideration, the question the religion must ask itself becomes (to take Needham as our example) not What form of counseling does God require?

It is Professor Arkes» larger claims for a natural law constitutional jurisprudence — claims advanced by Professor Hittinger and Mr. Ball as well — that, it seems to me, land the whole enterprise in trouble.

All three take me to task for excluding natural law as a source of new principles in constitutional adjudication.

Consistent with the Hoover Report's recommendations that the United States had to reconsider «long - standing American concepts of fair play» and «learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies,» the shadow government built alliances between U.S. government officials, the Mafia, and international drug cartels; assassinated many thousands of civilians in Southeast Asia; carried out or attempted assassination of foreign leaders; trained death squads and secret police forces; worked to shore up unpopular dictators like the Shah of Iran and the Somoza dictatorship in prerevolutionary Nicaragua; worked to destabilize «unfriendly» governments such as Allende in Chile and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua; cooperated with the Colombian drug cartel to plot the assassination of the former U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica, Lewis Tambs, with the intention of justifying a U.S. invasion of Nicaragua by blaming his death on the Sandinistas; contracted with the Reagan administration and the National Security Council to find ways of circumventing a congressional ban prohibiting aid to the contras, including the trading of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and money for the contras; illegally shipped weapons from the United States to the contras and allowed returning planes to use the same protected flight paths to transport drugs into the United States; 11 targeted the U.S. people for disinformation campaigns; and helped prepare contingency plans for declaring a form of martial law in the United States that would have formally suspended constitutional freedoms.

That one action by Senator Kennedy paved the way for a judicial appointment that almost surely was the key to preserving a constitutional right to abortion on demand and to the overturning of U.S. laws protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Richard Posner, a judge of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a New York Times op - ed co-authored December 2 with Law Professor Eric Segall, takes Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to task for threatening America with a «majoritarian theocracy» because of his repeated dissents, since Lawrence v. Texas, against the expansion of homosexual «rights» as a matter of Constitutional solicitude.

Nevertheless, a nation should include at least such elements as common commitment to the rule of law, generally accepted limits on political power and rhetoric, belief in constitutional governance, the rights of citizens, etc..

The Court, as it had prior to Casey, refused to apply the usual principle that laws should be interpreted to avoid constitutional difficulties, thereby illustrating a unique hostility to laws regulating abortion.

They consider the constitutional right of religious freedom given to all citizens under the Secular State as guaranteeing all religious communities the right to follow their traditional «personal» law regulating family and community relations which are sanctioned by religion.

After all, the Court could have come down, as the German Constitutional Court did in a 1975 decision interpreting Germany's Basic Law, in precisely the opposite way — invalidating a legislatively enacted liberalization of abortion.

But whether one affirms or questions the appropriateness of separation as a metaphor; whether one looks to the original intent of our constitutional authors and their allies or views the law as an evolving entity; whether one points to establishment or free exercise as the key to American religious liberty, Hamburger's Separation of Church and State is a book destined to ensure that the argument continues.

And were such laws propounded as essential features of the constitutional order itself — which is to say, propounded as laws governing the making of any other laws — then we could reasonably ask about the legitimacy of that regime.

Count me among those who regard our present constitutional law on pornography as an obscenity.

Such a view of law would permit for - profit corporations to have the moral culpability of criminal convictions, take moral views on a slew of ethical concerns, and let corporations exercise other constitutional guarantees as persons while inexplicably siphoning off only for - profit corporations from religious protection.

We know that something fundamental is being tampered with when a solid conservative like Sam Ervin of North Carolina denounces the Washington laws as violating constitutional rights.

What is one's place in a political regime that regards abortion as defining of the constitutional covenant, that expands the principle to other institutions of both private and public law, and that politically disempowers opponents?

Churches» limited exemption from antidiscrimination law is not and can not be justified as a special privilege for religion but simply as an instance of the autonomy, privacy, and «freedom of association» enjoyed by all members of the constitutional community, religious and nonreligious alike.

And when it comes to immunizing such «choices» from legal restriction or even private remonstration, the Court's liberals can be counted upon to flip on the switch of what Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in dissent, describes as «the ad hoc nullification machine that [is] set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of the highly favored practice of abortion.»

This constitutional conversation proceeds as legislatures pass laws and courts respond and legislatures pass new laws.

What we object to is, first, the judicial manufacture of constitutional law to displace without constitutional warrant the duly enacted judgments of the people and their elected representatives, and, second, the idea of judicial supremacy that treats the executive and legislative branches of the federal government as impotent to do anything but bow down before unconstitutional exercises of judicial power, however blatant and destructive of the constitutional order.

Lincoln is therefore today not only the model of a president committed to faithful execution of the laws and of his constitutional duties, but also the model for those who today embrace a strong view of the president's power that he holds as commander in chief in time of war.

Why do I suggest this as opposed to the more modest proposals of a constitutional code (the Cabinet Office telling us what we already have in simple form) or a constitutional consolidation act (a detailed statement from the Law Commission of what we already have)?

State secretaries of state are prohibited as a matter of law and constitutional principle from conducting foreign affairs.

Magna Carta was not intended as a constitutional framework or a basic law.