Sentences with phrase «by court decisions as»

This has been supplemented by court decisions as well as many findings by Federal and Provincial Privacy Commissioners.

Not exact matches

Election - integrity advocates nationwide are celebrating a decision by a New York state appeals court that classifies electronic ballot images as public records.

Extremely wealthy people — enabled by a series of key Supreme Court decisions as recently as yesterday — want to be able to spend gargantuan amounts of money in the political process and remain essentially private persons who don't get knocked around or criticized like everyone else in the political arena.

While the failure to cite the relevant literature criticizing Marshall / Bernard is notable, it may make the Tsilhqot» in Nation decision stronger as the reasoning is from «first principles» — as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Judge Weinstein's ruling is important, as it is the first federal court decision to address — and agree with — the CFTC's determination that virtual currencies are commodities as defined by the CEA.

As a federal court stated in a 2011 decision upholding the foreign national prohibition statute and regulation — a decision affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court: «It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self - government.&rcourt stated in a 2011 decision upholding the foreign national prohibition statute and regulation — a decision affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court: «It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self - government.&rCourt: «It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self - government.»

There are essays by Ronald Dworkin, Hadley Arkes, Jack Kevorkian, Derek Humphry, Leon Kass, and Gilbert Meilaender, as well as the Ramsey Colloquium's «Always to Care, Never to Kill,» plus pertinent court decisions and statements by medical associations.

Federal Courts determined that the Mormon Church is not the original Church led by Joseph Smith as the decision over ownership of the only surviving Church from Joseph Smith's life, Kirkland Temple in Ohio; the Federal Court rejected the Mormon Church's claim of ownership.

Because the Supreme Court's decision relied on on interpretation of the RFRA and not the First Amendment itself, Congress, by enacting legislation such as the bill offered by Murray and Udall, could override the court's ruling and guarantee women the same level of comprehensive health care coverage available toCourt's decision relied on on interpretation of the RFRA and not the First Amendment itself, Congress, by enacting legislation such as the bill offered by Murray and Udall, could override the court's ruling and guarantee women the same level of comprehensive health care coverage available tocourt's ruling and guarantee women the same level of comprehensive health care coverage available to men.

Similarly, if teachers employed by the public are assigned to teach on parochial school premises, they tend to come under the administrative aegis of the parochial rather than the public school (not that they teach religion, but that they otherwise function to some degree as adjunct faculty, increasing with tax funds the staffing resources of the parochial school — a consideration apparently underlying two 1985 decisions but not well articulated by the Supreme Court)

Olson also invoked «fundamental rights» and was queried by Justice Scalia as to just exactly when it became unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage: 1791 with the Bill of Rights, 1868 with the 14th Amendment, or some other date, perhaps after the Court declined in 1971 to review a Minnesota Supreme Court decision upholding opposite - sex marriage requirements?

December's decision by the Supreme Court, against the midwives, served as a crucial indicator of where we stand in relation to upholding the common good.

Councillor Toby Neal at Nottingham City Council was quoted by the Nottingham Post as saying: «Whilst respecting the court's decision, I feel the judge has missed the point of us bringing this action, which was to protect people from feeling bullied and intimidated while accessing hospital services - something we don't welcome in our city.»

Further, as the Cold War began, Christianity was unquestionably in control of American culture, so much so that religious organizations initially felt unthreatened by the new Supreme Court decisions.

Speaking from the left, Harvard's Duncan Kennedy describes Supreme Court decisions as the product of «the bizarre impact of self - delusion on the implementation of the political agenda by the judge.»

It turned out that the decision was not so much rooted in the Constitution as in the doctrine of precedent and» ironies begin to pile up at this point» in the Justices» perception that a contrary decision would undermine the Court's legitimacy by making it appear to be an institution influenced by politics.

A decision by the most senior court in India to grant a Christian campaigner bail has been hailed as a source of «some solace» for believers in the country as Easter celebrations draw near.

Everybody knows this, and men argue against its necessity and legitimacy only if certain decisions offend them morally and / or politically, as occurred for example in the attack on the Warren Court by the Conservative Right.

Over the weekend, many newspapers ran an Associated Press story by religion correspondent Rachel Zoll, about the emerging conflicts between same - sex marriage and religious freedom — such as are exemplified in the unfortunate decision last week by the New Mexico supreme court in Elane Photography v. Willock.

Over the weekend, many newspapers ran an Associated Press story by religion correspondent Rachel Zoll, about the emerging conflicts between same - sex marriage and religious freedom — such as are exemplified in the unfortunate decision last week by the New Mexico supreme court in Elane....

This test is being praised by the backers of the RFRA as duplicating the «compelling state interest» standard that the Supreme Court applied to free exercise cases before the Smith decision.

Indeed, as the history of the past three decades has shown, it is today's devotees of «negative liberty» as reinterpreted by postmodern radical skeptics and relativists who are the primary exponents of coercion in the name of «tolerance» and «diversity» — even if that coercion is mediated through split decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government.

The notion of freedom as the right to define ourselves autonomously was famously heralded by the US Supreme Court's notorious Planned Parenthood vs Casey decision in 1992.

Several prominent writers, including Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, rightfully challenged this recent legal decision by a local German court in Cologne, which would effectively criminalize ritual circumcision for infant males as an exercise of religious freedom for minority religious communities in the country.

This effort, like that of the NCBCPS, relies heavily on the distinction made by Justice Thomas Clark in the 1963 Supreme Court decision forbidding devotional reading of the Bible in public schools: «Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.»

None of what Lincoln achieved — the eventual abolition of slavery, the preservation of the Union — would have happened had Lincoln not thought himself constitutionally authorizedto resist the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott; constitutionally obligated, by his oath, to resist secession; and constitutionally empowered, as commander in chief, to fight the enemy with the full powers at his disposal, which included military force, blockade, suspension of habeas corpus, arrest and detention, seizure of enemy property, and emancipation of Southern slaves.

The civil rights movement was fueled as much by the Court's deference to democratic decision - making as it was by Brown.

Although a court will generally respect the decisions reached by the parents as to the upbringing of their child, a court will not support the following parenting plans:

For unmarried parents involved in a custody dispute, options for the custody decision are largely the same as those for divorcing couples — child custody and visitation will be resolved either through agreement between the child's parents, or by a family court judge's decision.

«It is important to note that the committee only endorsed a ruling by the court; this is not an arbitrary decision by the party as being speculated by Nii Noi's supporters».

As many as 85 decisions of BiH's Constitutional Court have been ignored and remain unimplemented by institutions at various administrative levels across the countrAs many as 85 decisions of BiH's Constitutional Court have been ignored and remain unimplemented by institutions at various administrative levels across the countras 85 decisions of BiH's Constitutional Court have been ignored and remain unimplemented by institutions at various administrative levels across the country.

Since Bolling v. Sharpe, a Supreme Court decisions that came out the same day as Brown v. Board of Education, the 5th amendment's Due Process clause has been interpreted by the courts to also imply a guarantee of equal protection under federal law.

Bearing this in mind, section 60 (5)(a) could and would, if necessary, be construed and applied by a court or tribunal as permitting preferential decisions on grounds of religious belief, only to the extent that such decisions were consistent with genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements.»

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II «natural born citizen» based on the Kenyan / British citizenship of Barack Obama's father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a «citizen» born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to «support and defend the Constitution of the United States» as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II «natural born citizen».

Leticia Astacio is appealing the decision by the Commission on Judicial Conduct to remove her as a Rochester City Court judge.

Yet, instead of accepting the reality and offering redress, the UK government chose to contest the High Court ruling, a decision described by the British lawyers representing the Kenyan victims as «morally repugnant ``.

In the meantime, we welcome the proposed rules as a sensible step towards plugging the holes in campaign finance rules created by the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision.

Super PACs like those, as well as secretive nonprofit groups — both spurred by the 2010 Citizens United decision and other federal court rulings — allowed extremely wealthy activists to play in presidential and congressional politics like never before.

As an example, consider the McCarthy decision rendered by the Court at the end of 2014.

He has described his suspension by the National Disciplinary Committee (NDC) of the party as procedurally irregular and breaching the rules of natural justice and wants the Human Rights Division of the court to revoke that decision.

He held that the interested parties having indicated their interest, which although was dismissed by the court, «the court is not minded to take any pre-emptive step» capable of undermining the eventual decision of the Court of Appeal, which he said could possibly order them to be joined as parcourt, «the court is not minded to take any pre-emptive step» capable of undermining the eventual decision of the Court of Appeal, which he said could possibly order them to be joined as parcourt is not minded to take any pre-emptive step» capable of undermining the eventual decision of the Court of Appeal, which he said could possibly order them to be joined as parCourt of Appeal, which he said could possibly order them to be joined as parties.

«It is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same conclusion if properly instructed, as is required by the law for the verdict to stand,» Jose Cabranes of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision said in his decision.

The GOP had moved more aggressively into the new Wild West - like campaign cash environment created by federal court decisions striking down spending and fundraising restrictions as unconstitutional infringements on free speech.

BY BILL LOVE and ROBIN FORST Members of the Lower Manhattan Democrats (L.M.D.) were thrilled by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the centerpiece legislation of Barack Obama's first term as presidenBY BILL LOVE and ROBIN FORST Members of the Lower Manhattan Democrats (L.M.D.) were thrilled by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the centerpiece legislation of Barack Obama's first term as presidenby the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the centerpiece legislation of Barack Obama's first term as president.

In January 2012, in a speech in Strasburg, Prime Minister David Cameron set out an agenda for reforming the ECtHR which would reduce the number of admissible cases, and thus the backlog, by ensuring that the Court did not act as a small claims court or Court of Fourth Instance and did not go over national decisions where it did not neeCourt did not act as a small claims court or Court of Fourth Instance and did not go over national decisions where it did not neecourt or Court of Fourth Instance and did not go over national decisions where it did not neeCourt of Fourth Instance and did not go over national decisions where it did not need to.

Recognition is completely a political notion / act (as stated by International Court of Justice, Kosovo 2010 decision) and has nothing to do with legality.

A 2013 decision by the Dominican Constitutional Court determined that several hundred thousand residents of the Caribbean nation born to undocumented immigrants are not citizens — even if their parents arrived as far back as 1929.

Delivering the Judgment, the Human Rights Court presided over by Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, Justice Anthony Yeboah held that the decision by the Fire Service was discriminatory and a breach of the fundamental Human Rights of the two applicants in the matter.

Pro-NPP Pressure group, Alliance for Accountable Governance (AFAG), has described as «needless» the decision by the Chief Justice, Sophia Akuffo, to set up special courts to prosecute persons who refuse to pay the mandatory TV license.