Sentences with phrase «bound by the constitution»

Quite apart from the maths of the matter, you do have to ask yourself — why would the IPCC, bound by its constitution to argue for cagw, and almost all MSM egging them on, admit the pause?

Josh Blackman's Blog says the proposal would amend the supremacy clause to state that judges «and other public officials» in every state are bound by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(2215) But those members of the Canadian judiciary who do indeed seek to be bound by the constitution could, I think, usefully consider the argument advanced by Professors Barnett and Bernick as a guide in their endeavours.

Not exact matches

Central to this Court - led revolution is the idea that the Constitution is in a state of more or less perpetual evolution, whence it follows that judges need not be bound by the precise words of the document, or by prior precedent, or by settled historical meaning.

That we may, and ought, to resist, and even make war against those rulers who leap the bounds prescribed them by the constitution, and attempt to oppress and enslave the subjects, is a principle on which alone the great revolutions which have taken place in our nation can be justified.»

It's the job of the legislative branch, in either the states or the national government, to enact laws within the bounds set by the Constitution.

Even when a valid moral code or constitution is accepted as relevant and binding by a society, it can not direct individual moral choices in any univocal fashion.

The rule of law, he has argued, demands that we be bound by the text of the law» not by evolving social standards, not even by some elusive authorial intent, but by the actual words of the Constitution and of the statutes passed by state and federal legislatures.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This possibility, I suspect, may lie close to the reason why Jefferson comes in for such criticism from Hamburger: if anyone in early American history embodies an unwillingness to defer to the past, and embodies the notion that a constitution needs to serve the living rather than remaining bound by the intentions of the dead, it is Jefferson.

Like others who support the original understanding of the Constitution, I disagree with many of the Supreme Court's decisions under the establishment clause, but in our system of government a federal - district judge like Judge Jones is bound by those decisions.

Thus, we will not enter into negotiations brokered by ECOWAS, if it does not recognize that the provisions of The Gambians constitution provide the basic legal principles to guild the sorting out of the details of this stalemate in order to arrive to a peaceful resolution legally binding on both parties.

The Iraq Resolution known as «AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002» cites national policy, a war on «terrorism», and United Nations Security Council Resolutions to justify authorization of military force against Iraq, but I am not aware of any document by which the United States has been legally bound by a declaration of war against Iraq as per the federal Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11).

Under the Constitution, action by the US President to declare a war is insufficient to bind the United States so as to place it in a state of war.

If we had the new constitution, actually the nation could stop a dangerous bill like this [article 65 gives the right for 10 % of the population to hold a binding national referendum on a law passed by the parliament].

«Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution states that the government is bound by the decisions of the court and obligated to implement them.

If Gordon Brown refuses to hold a referendum and the constitution is approved we should pledge to still hold that referendum and to be bound by the result.

Citing a similar case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the President was not bound by the advice of the Council of State, Yaw Oppong stated that, it was however vital that the President is seen to have sought the advice of the Judicial Council on the issue, as stated by the Constitution.

The state Constitution «already provides under what circumstances the lieutenant governor may cast a vote, and the Senate is bound by those provisions, regardless of what internal operating rules it passes,» the goo - goos wrote.

It was the contention of Martin Alamisi Amidu that the agreement and / or contract of * 26th April, 2006 * between the Republic of Ghana and Waterville Holdings is an international business or economic transaction under * Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution * that could only have become operative and binding on the Government of Ghana after being laid and approved by Parliament.

It argued that the AGF was bound by Section 174 of the constitution to prosecute anyone found to have contravened any law enacted by the National Assembly.

He won particular popularity in Gibraltar by supervising the introduction of a new constitution which bound Gibraltar more closely to the UK after the Spanish government of General Franco closed the border.

The elected are bound by oath to written governing limits (i.e. constitution) yet vote «together» and create laws to address concerns of the represented in a democratic way.

In addition, boards of education are bound by provisions of the state and federal constitutions and laws designed to protect the rights of people.

The radio producers discovered a photograph in the February 18, 1979 edition of the Atlanta Journal - Constitution that showed a couple of pages from a «leather - bound recipe book of ointments and medicines» that was kept by a friend of Coca - Cola founder John Pemberton and «passed down by friends and family for generations,» reports Time.com.

Except as expressly provided herein, any claim, dispute or controversy (whether based upon contract; tort, intentional or otherwise; constitution; statute; common law; or equity and whether pre-existing, present or future), including initial claims, counter-claims, cross-claims and thirdparty claims, arising from or relating to (i) the Card; (ii) any service relating to the Card; (iii) the marketing of the Card; (iv) this Cardholder Agreement, including the validity, enforceability, interpretation, scope, or application of the Agreement and this arbitration provision (except for the prohibition on class or other non-individual claims, which shall be for a court to decide); and (v) any other agreement or instrument relating to the Card or any such service («Claim») shall be decided, upon the election of you or the Bank (or Green Dot Corporation or the Bank's agents, employees, successors, representatives, affiliated companies, or assigns), by binding arbitration pursuant to this arbitration provision and the applicable rules and procedures of the arbitration administrator in effect at the time the Claim is filed.

They are bound by the same Constitution as any other government agency.

Warhol and Bischofberger were bound by a kind of symbiosis, as he advised the artist in many respects, even in terms of the constitution of his works.

But if the error had been retained, the U.S. might have been bound by the manacles of international law into something important enough to be considered a treaty under the U.S. Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2) establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and treaties as «the supreme Law of the Land», mandating that state judges be bound by them, even if state constitutions or laws conflict.

Those who have brought public opinion to bear on this subject act under a mere moral responsibility — under no oath which binds their movements to the straight and narrow line drawn by the Constitution.

The fact that Canada and the United States ostensibly are constitutional democracies signifies that «the rule of law» means indigenous territorial sovereignty continues to bind all courts of those countries unless and until the constitutions have been amended by the people, by constitutional legislation, pursuant to the amendment formulas made express and explicit in each constitution.

Rather, the Court's decision focuses on the unlawful nature of the President's attempt to effectively «make law,» by binding the state court to the World Court ruling without adequate authorization from the Constitution or Congress.

State constitutions or laws may have a different definition, but the President of the US is not bound by that definition.

The British constitution may be elusive, but it is certainly in flux at present, and as such the Commission may present an ideal opportunity to fix within it the basic principles which in any event the UK is bound by under European law.

Mr. Sirota concedes that judges must be bound by rules, but it seems to me that if judges are being tasked with correcting «democratic process failures» to ensure that the law does not become «divorced from reality», they will, at times, be forced to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is not consistent with the constitutional text or doctrine.

However, the court used the case of Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein to remind the state that it is bound by federal and state constitutions.

Thus it will be seen by these quotations from the opinion that the court, after stating the question it was about to decide in a manner too plain to be misunderstood, proceeded to decide it, and announced, as the opinion of the tribunal, that in organizing the judicial department of the Government in a Territory of the United States, Congress does not act under, and is not restricted by, the third article in the Constitution, and is not bound, in a Territory, to ordain and establish courts in which the judges hold their offices during good behaviour, but may exercise the discretionary power which a State exercises in establishing its judicial department and regulating the jurisdiction of its courts, and may authorize the Territorial Government to establish, or may itself establish, courts in which the judges hold their offices for a term of years only, and may vest in them judicial power upon subjects confided to the judiciary of the United States.

This reformulation would explain why (as the Court held) a binding guidelines system violates the Constitution, but an advisory guidelines system does not: A binding guideline system (such as the prior federal sentencing system) would violate Apprendi because — and to the extent that — it allows the judiciary to increase the sentence beyond the maximum sentence established by the legislature or Commission, pursuant to facts the legislature or Commission has prescribed as important.

In general, governments are able to legislate within the bounds of their powers, usually as enumerated in a constitution, and sometimes limited by a bill of rights.

2) apart from the fact that CJEU stated that even before EU exercising its power, the MS must still act - when they have the power to do so - in a matter which does not jeopardise or prejudice the EU, so that the mere «potential» competence does have an effect, limitating the MS action, the parallel is that a negative rule is still a rule, so that the existence of the rule makes the matter «regulated»: - as for the JHA, I must say that whilst I agree with you on the merits, I can see the issue raised by the CJEU, since it is quite the same raised by some national Constitutional Courts, i.e. that ECHR standards may be in conflict with national standards and formally speaking the ECHR is a treaty and therefore has a lower rank that national Constititions, and the decision of the ECHR on the interpretation of such standards within the context of the Convention does not bind the national Constitutional Court in interpreting the national Constitution standards: e.g..

Interestingly, Article VI Clause 2 specifically provides that EVERY STATE COURT JUDGE, shall be bound by the Federal Constitution, as the supreme Law of the Land, and anything in the Constitution or Laws of a state to the contrary notwithstanding.

That on 6 May, 1776, the Colony of Virginia threw off its dependence on the Crown and government of Great Britain and declared itself an independent state and government with the limits prescribed and established by the letters patent of May 23, 1609, as curtailed and restricted by the letters patent establishing the Colonies of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Carolina and by the Treaty of February 10, 1763, between Great Britain and France, which limits, so curtailed and restricted, the State of Virginia, by its Constitution and form of government, declared should be and remain the limits of the state and should bound its western and northwestern extent.

The project is bound by the Decred Constitution, so users can know what to expect: a finite number of coins, decentralized governance and a place to share their views.