Sentences with phrase «constitutional law point»

My initial thought is a rather technical constitutional law point that took me back to my days at law school.

Not exact matches

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.

A professor of constitutional law and a doctor write about dying and death from their respective points of view.

Constitutional scholars point out that Sharia law is religious law, and the first words of the First Amendment say, «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.»

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.

Good point on the 1993 election which I recall well as I was taking a course in Canadian Constitutional Law at the time.

«Yesterday's ruling was a landmark ruling that tells about the fact that our courts are working, rule of law is part of our lives and that our democracy is alive and kicking and that at any point in time we can be confident that we have a court to rely on and that when people feel aggrieved by decisions by an arm of government or a constitutional body, they can always appeal and have hearing and sometimes can have their grievances addressed in their favour.

• Article 95.2, that points the competence of the High Court to unify doctrine, the Constitutional court clarifies that this competence doesn't limit the possibility to be regulated for the Organic Law about Power of Attorney to regulate that in every historic moment the jurisdictional function is up to the High Court, and therefore what is pointed in the autonomy statute is not qualification.

But in addition to codifying Roe v. Wade into state law, passing an equal rights constitutional amendment and passing the aforementioned ban on firearms for domestic abusers, the agenda has some other noteworthy points.

But Administration officials were quick to point out that the decision dealt only with the law and not sampling as a constitutional issue.

Second question is relevant from the point of view of constitutional rights and laws is the question of the legitimacy of the judge as the balancer, especially when the judge doesn't have sufficient constitutional standing to apply principles from this standpoint, and that when he does so, he unduly restricts and even usurps other powers enshrined in the constitution.

Jana Carlisle, executive director of the Partnership for Learning, points out that the initiative was drafted in consultation with experts in constitutional law.

She claimed that the «de facto point of reference is domestic constitutional law and its understanding of the principle of legality».

While the reasoning contains some points on EU law (the SCC mentions the cases of Melki and Abdeli [Joined Cases C ‑ 188 / 10 and C ‑ 189 / 10], A v B and Others [C - 112 / 13] and Kernkraftwerke Lippe - Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück [C - 5 / 14] to explain that national constitutional proceedings can not hinder EU preliminary references), the conclusion is reached mostly on the basis of Spanish constitutional law.

Law professor David Orentlicher, quoted in the Indianapolis Star article, predicted that the constitutional challenge to the law will fail, pointing out that convenience stores and other affected businesses are «not a group that is consistently disfavored in the political process.&raqLaw professor David Orentlicher, quoted in the Indianapolis Star article, predicted that the constitutional challenge to the law will fail, pointing out that convenience stores and other affected businesses are «not a group that is consistently disfavored in the political process.&raqlaw will fail, pointing out that convenience stores and other affected businesses are «not a group that is consistently disfavored in the political process.»

I am simply pointing out that in administrative law, difficult and controversial value judgments can be as prevalent as they are in constitutional cases involving fundamental rights.

Delvigne is an important judgment from the point of view of constitutional law, the political nature of Union citizenship and the role played by the Court of Justice in reviewing increasingly large areas of national law.

One other point I neglected to mention: not only public law (administrative, criminal, constitutional) is the same in Québec as in the rest of Canada.

The book provides a point of departure for Sunstein's playful meditation on «the force» of serendipity in constitutional law, and it illustrates how storytellers — both moviemakers and Supreme Court justices — often conceal or refuse to acknowledge authorial responsibility for serendipitous creative decisions, with claims that their discoveries were externally predetermined.

Scott begins by pointing to one of the recommendations from Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission asking governments «to recognize and implement the health - care rights of Aboriginal people as identified in international law and constitutional law, and under the Treaties.»

The Court of Justice reached this decision, which was highly controversial, after conducting a review of the scope of the protection afforded to communications with in - house counsel across the member states of the EU, and finding there not to be a sufficiently broad consensus on this point to justify the extension of the privilege, given that it was identified as being one of the fundamental principles of law common to the constitutional traditions of the member states.

I will write later about the importance of the concept of rule of law, and how it is important that that concept be fostered not only in the courts, but also in the legislatures, the executives and the citizenry of the country (and I must give credit to Simon Potter, former President of the Canadian Bar Association, who made this point at his speech at the Conference of the Constitutional Law and Human Rights Section of the CBA on June 27, 201law, and how it is important that that concept be fostered not only in the courts, but also in the legislatures, the executives and the citizenry of the country (and I must give credit to Simon Potter, former President of the Canadian Bar Association, who made this point at his speech at the Conference of the Constitutional Law and Human Rights Section of the CBA on June 27, 201Law and Human Rights Section of the CBA on June 27, 2014).

However, the Federal Constitutional Court pointed out that the German legislature is obliged to improve the law within the next year in order to assure that the interests of minorities are not being neglected.

For the time being, the significant point is that, as noted at the beginning of this post, the reasoning of the majority in Kennedy — which emphasizes the fertility and richness of the common law as a source of fundamental rights and values — falls increasingly to be understood as part of a new stream of constitutional jurisprudence emerging from the Supreme Court.

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 EU system)

Mostly, the right of access to courts (which the parties tended to refer to as access to justice, although — as the provinces pointed out — access to justice involves many different things) was said to flow from the constitutional principle of the Rule of Law, which the Supreme Court has long recognized, albeit giving it a very narrow meaning.

The history of the Federal Bill of Rights in the early state courts points also to some deficiencies of modern constitutional law.

The importance of this point is not, however, that it can be fashioned into a self - standing constitutional principle, but that it underscores that a litigant, whether plaintiff or defendant, comes to court not to gain a benefit, but to vindicate a right already conferred on him or her by law.

1) we agree to disagree:) 2) supremacy of EU law for the EU system is the equivalent of the hard core of constitutional values that some national Courts defend against EU (and ECHR)- it is not a matter of «legitimacy» or «patriotism» but of using a «lower rank» instrument (accession treaty) to interfere with a treaty rule: the identical issue is for States who have a «rigid» constitution (alike the Treaty binds the CIEU): the accession treaty to ECHR or EU has a «lower rank» than the Constitution itself, so that the national Constitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwconstitutional values that some national Courts defend against EU (and ECHR)- it is not a matter of «legitimacy» or «patriotism» but of using a «lower rank» instrument (accession treaty) to interfere with a treaty rule: the identical issue is for States who have a «rigid» constitution (alike the Treaty binds the CIEU): the accession treaty to ECHR or EU has a «lower rank» than the Constitution itself, so that the national Constitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwConstitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwhich prevails.

Our Chief Justice has delivered scores of judgments touching on everything from the finer points of contract law, to criminal law, to constitutional issues, including the interwoven roles of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, and the proper duties of each.