Sentences with phrase «decisions on constitutional issues»

It isn't unthinkable that Congressional mandates on how the judiciary conducts its business, particularly if it impacts the substance of judicial decisions on constitutional issues, could be held unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds.

Not exact matches

When confronted with federal constitutional arguments by the State based on the Smith decision, the Minnesota court deftly sidestepped the issue.

In developing his notion of «curricular neutrality,» Nord takes on issues of linguistics and philosophy, but his main concern is the constitutional law produced by the Supreme Court's decisions on church and state.

Each concerned a growingly contentious issue in politics, each sought to take it out of politics by deciding it judicially on constitutional grounds, and each did so by basing the decision on the due process clause of the Constitution.

No doubt, there should be a thorough parliamentary debate on the issue, but instead of forcing a decision in this parliament, which could well be as controversial and divisive as the ill - fated referendum, I strongly agree with Nick Clegg that by far the best and most dignified way out of the current mess would be to ask the people in the proper constitutional way by calling an snap general election:

Senate Minority Leader Andrea Stewart - Cousins did not praise the constitutional amendment that would codify the Roe v. Wade decision in state law as backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Monday, indicating more urgency was needed on the issue.

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy says he'd rather see the Congress craft a constitutional amendment to overturn recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance than have states call a constitutional convention to address the issue.

The Green Party of New York (GPNY) State Committee made a decision at its quarterly meeting on Saturday, September 16 to issue a statement that it would decline to endorse either the pro or con side of the New York State Constitutional Convention vote in November.

But those who follow the issue, and I know that that's most of you in this room, knew that that decision, while it closed one battleground — and that was a battleground over the federal Establishment Clause in the United States Constitution — it also threw the spotlight on a remaining battleground, and that is the battleground over state constitutional restrictions on government aid for religious institutions.

On February 8, 2011, two years after the community of Agua Caliente filed its lawsuit, the Constitutional Court issued a landmark decision.

Stated differently, the Supreme Court is not free to accept without analysis the conclusions that state courts and state law proclaim with respect to the boundaries of property rights or the limitations thereof when the decision on those questions implicates or undercuts important federal constitutional issues.

Absent a constitutional provision of an applicable statute, the BC courts are bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada on the issues before them.

The appeal concerned two important issues: firstly, whether a judge appointed for a short renewable term had security of tenure sufficient to satisfy the constitutional guarantee of an independent and impartial court, and secondly whether the decision to try the case by judge alone was to be decided on the criminal standard of proof.

It is this «legislative vacuum» that sparked the litigation and the Court's decision to rule on this important constitutional issue.

His decision on this issue meant that a majority of five judges considered the legislation to be constitutional.

Our settled practice, however, is to avoid the decision of a constitutional issue if a case can be fairly decided on a statutory ground.

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..

It enables the plaintiff to make an informed decision as to forum, it enables the defendant to make an informed decision on whether or not to contest the territorial jurisdiction of the chosen forum, and it enables the fundamental constitutional issue of territorial competence to be determined as soon as the assertion of competence is made by filing the initial pleading...

Only a few days after the Court of Justice of the European Union buried the hatchet in the so - called Taricco saga (reported step by step on Verfassungsblog by Bassini and Pollicino — here, here, here — and by myself here), the Italian Constitutional Court issued its decision no. 269 of 2017 (an English translation of the decision is available here).