Not exact matches
As a matter of
constitutional law, the
federal government has ample
authority in this area.
Moreover, they held that Congress lacked
constitutional authority to forbid or abolish slavery in
federal territories.
That decision was constitutionally incorrect, they insisted, and amounted to a
federal court's usurpation of the
constitutional authority of the states.
Therefore, they contended that a lower
federal court in Little Rock had no
constitutional authority to order the desegregation of public schools in Arkansas on the basis of the Brown decision.
Although the power of Congress to forbid slavery in
federal territories was well - established, Sandford argued that slaves were private property of the sort protected by the Constitution against deprivation without due process of law, and that therefore Congress lacked any
constitutional authority to ban slavery in the territories.
Or are you asking if the
federal authorities can do it at all, from a
constitutional point of view?
Under Supreme Court
constitutional interpretation, since individual states never had the original sovereign
authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of
federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be «reserved» under the Tenth Amendment.
«They are in fact acting fully within the law and within their
constitutional authority to refrain from implementing
federal policies that harm communities.»
To do this as an educational policy is within the broad discretionary powers of school
authorities; absent a finding of a
constitutional violation, however, that would not be within the
authority of a
federal court.
The association contends that under the
federal 1995 District of Columbia School Reform Act (SRA), which was passed under Congress's
constitutional authority over the district, charter schools are entitled to equal per - pupil spending.
Congress exceeded its
constitutional authority when it amended the
federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to cover states and their political subdivisions, such as cities and school districts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week.
Here's moderator John Merrow's reason for keeping away those who think that the
federal government has neither the
Constitutional authority, nor the ability, to run American education:
Aside from desegregation — which it has
Constitutional authority to compel — the
federal government has done no meaningful good in education.
The
federal announcement was in regards to the reference question NDP Premier John Horgan's government filed with the BC Court of Appeal under the provincial BC
Constitutional Question Act to determine whether the province has the
authority to seek permits from companies wanting to ship more bitumen through the province.
In Canada, both the
federal government and the provinces have the
constitutional authority to award QCs.
We say this because the division of powers part of the judgement (commencing at para 98) is full of all sorts of references to two levels of government (see e.g. para 141) and similar comments about «interlocking
federal and provincial schemes» that make it abundantly clear that this Court has given no thought to the space within which indigenous laws may operate within the modern
constitutional order (for recognition that the law making
authority of aboriginal peoples pre-dated the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty, was not extinguished by that acquisition of sovereignty and was not impaired by the division of legislative powers between the
federal and provincial governments in 1982 see Campbell v British Columbia (2000), 189 DLR (4th) 333 (BCSC) and Justice Deschamps in Beckman v Little Salmon / Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 SCR 103 at para 97).
Provincial superior courts recognized by s. 96 «have always occupied a position of prime importance in the
constitutional pattern of this country», and the
Federal Court, by contrast, «has only the jurisdiction conferred by statute», and being a statutory court, created under the
constitutional authority of s. 101, does not have inherent jurisdiction (emphasis in original).
The reason there is no
federal law about private driver licensing or private vehicle registration is that Congress lacks the
constitutional authority to interfere with the internal police power of the states.
Only the states have the
constitutional authority to regulate private drivers and vehicles within a state, so these laws are created on valid state
authority, not
federal authority.
The following provisions shall apply to States Parties which have a
federal or non-unitary
constitutional system: (a) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of the
federal or central legislative power, the obligations of the
federal or central government shall be the same as for those States Parties which are not
federal States; (b) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation of which comes under the jurisdiction of individual constituent States, countries, provinces or cantons which are not obliged by the
constitutional system of the federation to take legislative measures, the
federal government shall inform the competent
authorities of such States, countries, provinces or cantons of the said provisions, with its recommendation for their adoption.
Four of the seven SCC judges reached the decision which was released July 31, while the other three declined to deal with the issue, ruling the
constitutional argument shouldn't be considered because Julie Guindon, the lawyer who launched the appeal, failed to give proper notice to
federal and provincial
authorities.
That an interpretation of «telephonic» should take notice of the limits imposed on the
federal government by virtue of our
constitutional division of powers, that is that the Act can only apply to matters over which the
federal government has legislative
authority, is further supported by the specific reference in s. 13 (1) to communication «by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative
authority of Parliament».
[87] Finally, an interpretation of «telephonically» that refers back to the underlying system of transmission also respects the legislative
authority of the
federal Parliament, and defines telephonic by reference to the limits of Parliament's
constitutional authority.
The defense, such as it is, boils down to this: As officers of the court, all defense lawyers are really on the government's side, having sworn an oath to uphold a vast, century - old conspiracy to conceal the fact that most aspects of the
federal government are illegitimate, including the courts, which have no
constitutional authority to bring people to trial.
Her office also provides expert legislative drafting services to Senators to assist them in their
constitutional mandate to deliberate and legislate on all matters that fall within the legislative
authority of the
federal Parliament.
«Unlike the Congress of the United States, the General Assembly of Virginia functions under no grant of power»... The General Assembly, in «represent [ing] the sovereign
authority of the people» is restricted only by the Constitution of Virginia «in express terms or by strong implication»... [I] t is a restraining instrument, and... the General Assembly... possesses all legislative power not prohibited by the Constitution»... In short, «[u] nless forbidden by some State or
Federal constitutional provision,» the General Assembly's «powers are plenary.
Historically,
constitutional authority appointing Supreme Court judges rests with the
federal Cabinet by way of Order in Council.