Sentences with phrase «constitutional convention within»

It may be relevant, though, that I am one of the few American legal academics who has publicly endorsed the desirability of holding a new constitutional convention within the United States.

Not exact matches

The case for a convention is strong: the constitutional settlement is currently in flux with cross-party agreement to devolve further powers to Scotland; the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies want enhanced powers; and there are calls for devolution to the regions and cities within England and / or an English parliament.

In particular, it will not apparently be for any constitutional convention to deliberate the form of devolution within England.

If a petition on an issue pertaining to the constitution collects a specified number of signatures from citizens (or those authorized) within a specified time period, the petition launches a constitutional convention.

Given the similarity of their preferred options, the Scottish Liberal Democrats had co operated with the Scottish Labour Party in the Scottish Constitutional Convention to produce a blueprint for a devolved parliament within the United Kingdom.

Also at 6 p.m., Columbia Law School and the Rockefeller Institute of Government hold forum on «Constitutional Convention Referendum 2017 and Home Rule within the Empire State,» Jerome Greene Hall, first floor, Columbia Law School, 435 W. 116th St., Manhattan.

And the yes voters, 73 % of whom are apparently in the market for a second referendum within five years, might well reflect that all the commissions thus far — from the constitutional convention which delivered devolution through Labour's Calman commission updating the Scotland Act, to the latest Smith proposals, share one arresting component: all appear to have a built - in obsolescence — as the independence debate stubbornly refuses to shut down.

The Summer of 1787 traces the struggles within the Philadelphia Convention as the delegates hammered out the charter for the world's first constitutional democracy.

It held that Canada's constitution as a whole, and more particularly the convention of not appointing women to the Senate, were capable of evolving within the constitutional framework.

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..

The Italian constitutional Court has upheld national rules which had been judged by the ECHR as contrary to the Convention, arguing that such rules nevertheless protected a different constitutional principle of the national constitution and the convention could not modify the constitution, beng it a lower rank act - so from a theoretical point of view the CJEU adopts the same approach: the ultimate decision on whether a EU act is in compliance with EU law must be taken within EU only (to make a parallel, think of the CJEU approach for WTO decisions: despite an action being contrary to WTO as decided by the appellate body, nonetheless individuals can use such illegality as a ground to void the action within the Convention, arguing that such rules nevertheless protected a different constitutional principle of the national constitution and the convention could not modify the constitution, beng it a lower rank act - so from a theoretical point of view the CJEU adopts the same approach: the ultimate decision on whether a EU act is in compliance with EU law must be taken within EU only (to make a parallel, think of the CJEU approach for WTO decisions: despite an action being contrary to WTO as decided by the appellate body, nonetheless individuals can use such illegality as a ground to void the action within the convention could not modify the constitution, beng it a lower rank act - so from a theoretical point of view the CJEU adopts the same approach: the ultimate decision on whether a EU act is in compliance with EU law must be taken within EU only (to make a parallel, think of the CJEU approach for WTO decisions: despite an action being contrary to WTO as decided by the appellate body, nonetheless individuals can use such illegality as a ground to void the action within the EU system)