Sentences with phrase «bill of materials]»

The greatest injury of the «wall» notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States.

An example of what is being sought by workers is the New Technology Bill of Rights issued by the International Association of Machinists, representing some 650,000 workers in the machine - tool, metal - working, aerospace and airline industries.

3 Divorce was easy, and by giving her a written bill of divorcement a husband on any pretext could send away his wife «if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her» (Deut.

The Broadcasting Act of 1934 was a Bill of Rights which requires responsibility.

Ask him about the bill of divorcement.

This miracle will occur, according to the sponsors, «without tampering with the Bill of Rights.»

The final four are from the Bill of Rights in the Constitution: the right to practice religion, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to bear arms.

When this proved ineffectual, she decided to leave him and wrote up a repudium, a lawful bill of divorce.

Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has now been applied against the states, achieving three revolutionary results at once: 1) The original understanding of federalism has been obliterated, so that the states exercise their power now largely at the sufferance of the Supreme Court; 2) The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of Section 1 have become a kind of witches» cauldron from which an exotic brew of postmodern nostrums has been fed into the bloodstream of the political culture; 3) The Supreme Court has successfully arrogated to itself more or less exclusive powers of constitutional interpretation.

For my Kevin Williamson - fortified bill of particulars, scroll down to the post below.

Much of the book, in fact, is taken up by a close look at the eighteenth - century debates over the adoption of the Bill of Rights and at the nineteenth - century debates over the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nevertheless, for all his artful linguistic deconstruction, Amar has no effective answer for the most obvious question of all: If in fact the framers of the Amendment intended to apply the Bill of Rights against the states, why didn't any of them say so?

Maybe you should read the entire Bill of Rights sometime.

This treaty has been dubbed variously as a «Bill of Rights for Corporations», «a Corporate Rule Treaty» and «a Capitalists» Charter» in view of the far - reaching powers it seeks to confer upon corporations.

At the heart of this transformation lie certain assumptions concerning Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically whether and to what extent that section incorporated the Bill of Rights and made it applicable against the states.

Before 1945 there were human rights declarations, such as the Magna Charta of 1215, the British Bill of Rights, the American Declaration of Independence and the French D = 82claration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen.

In his new book, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, one of the most prolific and engaging students of the new constitutional order, engages this question.

In these three documents (commonly referred to as the International Bill of Rights) one finds seventy six different human rights.

Amar's thesis, in a nutshell, is this: 1) The Bill of Rights was not conceived by the framers as a charter of individual liberties in the manner now routinely employed by the Court.

His argument on the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, rests on a strained parsing of the Reconstruction debates intended to show that the Privileges and Immunities Clause (which the Supreme Court effectively eviscerated shortly after the Amendment's adoption) was intended to make the Bill of Rights operative against the states.

Here is a question to ponder: If, as Professor Amar insists, that clause incorporated the Bill of Rights and gave us the modern conception of individual liberty, does he wish to suggest that it would also justify the result in Roe v. Wade?

In The Bill of Rights he attempts to set it right.

Unlike many of his peers, Amar sees the symmetry between the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but, unlike Goldwin, he does not fully appreciate how the very structure of the Constitution itself operates as a bill of rights, or how a different constitutional structure could render the actual Bill a nullity.

A second school, most closely associated on the Court with Felix Frankfurter, denies that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to incorporate any of the Bill of Rights.

Though it is written in the Law of Moses that the husband can divorce his wife with a bill of divorcement, on the other hand it is written, «God created them man and woman; therefore a man shall leave father and mother, and the two shall be one flesh.

We are allowed Freedom of Expression in this country unless, that is, the Bill of Rights has been repealed.

That's why we in america have the Bill of Rights, to protect ourselves from the gov «t.

Eventually a universal bill of rights should emerge, containing the basic principles of justice with which all law, both within and between the nations, should be compatible.

The bill of rights says one is free to practice a religion or not to practice a religion.

In particular it was Cromwell's standing army that people wanted to make sure never happened again when the English bill of rights was written, but yes, it also had very unhappy consequences for the Irish.

it is not established law nor is it written into the bill of rights.

It was one of the rights of Englishmen from the English Bill of Rights in 1688:

If we delete another few paragraphs from the Bill of Rights (for our own protection, of courw, in the interest of peace, prosperity, and carefree summer vacations), what do we ask of the state in return for our silence in court?

Jesus» teachings about marriage, divorce, and singleness would have been seen as radical not only by Jews but also by various people outside the Jewish context in the Roman empire.65 He annulled the prevailing custom, which permitted a man to discharge his wife on any silly pretext merely by giving her a bill of divorce, and, thereby, he restored the indissolubility of marriage as originally willed by the Creator (Mk.

If religion is so bent on selling us a bill of goods, they need to deliver the proof, otherwise it's just Aesop's Fables.

Liberalism stands for «freedom and the rule of law,» he writes, «a system of «negative rights» that no government may legitimately infringe (as in the U.S. Bill of Rights).»

Read the Bill of Rights, realize how many of those basic rights, that congress was to NEVER change at all, have slowly been changed and eroded.

24:1), her husband has a legal (and therefore moral) right to give her a bill of divorce and put her out of the house.

There are 260 million americans and a bill of rights and many millions of gun owners who have nothing to do with mass shooting yet you want to make the difference by banning something that affects 3 million plus law abiding citizens... to stop.008 % of murders???

Of course the rules stipulate that she has rights; she must be given a bill of divorce, so she is free to marry again.

It just doesn't seem to fit the bill of what the cover and the first chapter led me to believe I was reading.

I speak of your founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

Anyone who tells you not to think is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; must consider international law; and may consider foreign law.

This poor little fish is being sold a bill of goods.

What the Constitution or the Bill of Rights could not specify, or could indicate only ambiguously, the ongoing give - and - take of an engaged citizenry would slowly clarify.

When the UN Human Rights Commission was established the next year, Eleanor Roosevelt became its first chair, and the U.S. promptly asked the commission to draft an international bill of rights.

Also, fewer Americans have a net income tax liability and so marginal income tax cuts would do ever-less to shrink the tax bill of ever - fewer people.

If only we will give up our minds and our votes to the cause of the month, the bill of the month, if only we will shout how we are victims.