That just means Congress can not
establish a law preventing a person of certain religion from being President.
Not exact matches
However, when people act to
prevent people from doing things that they believe is wrong and not covered by
established law, then we have an issue.
It declares in substance, «When the gods named me Hammurabi to cause righteousness to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, to
prevent the strong from plundering the weak, to enlighten the land and to further the welfare of the people... I
established law and justice in the land and promoted the welfare of the public.
The new counter-terrorism
law and its «statutory duty» advances this public sector approach to counter-extremism by legally requiring a wider range of institutions to
establish formal counter-extremism protocols in line with the government's
Prevent agenda.
That's because jurisdiction just controls what that country's courts do — American jurisdiction means that American courts are willing to try the person and American
law enforcement can arrest them if they set foot in America, and the only time the US doesn't get to
establish jurisdiction is if US
law prevents it (e.g. the Constitution) or if an international treaty forbids it (e.g. diplomatic immunity).
«The legislation would
prevent campaign contributors from evading the legal contribution limits by setting up shell corporations and instead
establish a more level playing field to promote greater fairness and consistency in the Election
Law.»
A court may require disclosure of such information if it is necessary to
prevent a manifest injustice, help
establish a violation of
law, or
prevent harm to the public health or safety.
There is little recent guidance on this issue and it isn't clear that this rule should apply to accounts
established under the more modern version of the custodial account
law, because UTMA contains language designed to
prevent parents from being taxed on custodial account income when the account is used for purposes that fall within the parent's support obligation.
(B) Except in the normal performance of duty as a mobility or signal aid, this paragraph does not
prevent the owner of a housing accommodation from
establishing terms in a lease or rental agreement that reasonably regulate the presence of guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs on the premises of a housing accommodation, nor does this paragraph relieve a tenant from any liability otherwise imposed by
law for real and personal property damages caused by such a dog when proof of the damage exists.
Doing so will
establish a «common
law» trademark, meaning that you'll be able to
prevent other businesses from using your name.
It is
established law that the measure of damages payable pursuant to a cross undertaking is contractual in nature; the contract in question being a fictional agreement between the applicant and respondent that the applicant would not
prevent the respondent from doing that which it is restrained from doing by the terms of the orders.
If legacy thinking and the inertia of a well -
established, self - governing profession
prevents the
law from being brought into line with the technological capabilities now available to us, we will have missed a valuable opportunity to facilitate Canadian legal tech innovators to develop their products domestically.
Section 2 (2)'s obligation to consult is significant because it
establishes a common
law duty of care and a basis for Canada's liability in failing to take reasonable steps in
preventing Ontario's Sixties Scoop class members from losing their Aboriginal identity.
This is in stark contrast with the general
law of search,
established in cases such as R. v. Mann, which
prevents peace officers from using a specific, narrowly defined search power to engage in a «fishing expedition» for unrelated incriminating evidence.
The
law in this area is far from clear and there tends to be an element of something going beyond mere non-payment, such as effort to hide assets such as in Parent, however, the
law does seem to have evolved to provide that a court may direct payment of funds — in contrast to simply directing a judgment — and if the creditor can
establish the debtor was aware of the order, had the ability to comply and refused, it would appear that Rule 10.52 (3) will not
prevent a Court from jailing the party in default.
Although at the time this case was heard, the majority of provincial and territorial appellate courts held that courts had jurisdiction to
prevent defence counsel from withdrawing due to non-payment in fees, there was some division in the case
law and differing approaches had been taken in the codes of conduct
established by provincial
law societies.
The answer is based on a well -
established principle of copyright
law that tries to
prevent granting patent - like rights through copyright.