Sentences with phrase «framers intended»

... With such specific wording in contemporary state constitutions, why was not a similar wording adopted for the First Amendment if its framers intended to prohibit nothing more than what the States were prohibiting?»

In other words, the Fathers and framers intended to make trade liberalization a sweeping constitutional force that would limit the legislative powers of Ottawa and the provinces that are set out in sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act.

This, of course, is not what the Framers intended.

Yes, you are correct - and that it what the framers intended.

His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the amendments were passed by Congress... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build the «wall of separation» that was constitutionalized in Everson.

I'm for going back to a well regulated Milita like the framers intended.

Not exact matches

The framers, Gorsuch wrote last year, intended for lawmakers to make the laws, executives to execute them and judges to decipher their meaning.

Judge Ronald LeBlanc said the original framers of the Constitution never intended that laws should blatantly block the free flow of goods within their new country.

The framers and ratifiers intended it to be a permanent text, establishing fundamental and immutable principles for republican government.

First, «the framers and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights intended at least some of the amendments to secure natural rights.»

A second school, most closely associated on the Court with Felix Frankfurter, denies that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to incorporate any of the Bill of Rights.

Nevertheless, for all his artful linguistic deconstruction, Amar has no effective answer for the most obvious question of all: If in fact the framers of the Amendment intended to apply the Bill of Rights against the states, why didn't any of them say so?

None of which matters, really — arguing that the framers of the country intended it to be a Christian nation because they themselves were Christian when they specifically did not write that into the laws is just projecting your own desires onto them.

In his maiden speech — which, following a tradition now rarely observed, he waited a year after his election to deliver — Sasse argued that the upper house of the U.S. Congress was intended specifically by the framers to preserve minority opinion by enshrining a process of long - form debate to preclude a legislative fast track.

«Why» is not a very helpful question when considering English laws: even a quotation from Hansard saying what the framers of the law hoped to achieve is not generally acceptable in court, as the judges have to apply the law as it was written, not what was intended.

Confronting similar challenges in the post-authoritarian interim period, the framers of each constitution intended to create a new, democratic state.

Although the U.S. has a federalist framework, since roughly the administration of Theodore Roosevelt administration and with a larger expansion under FDR, the federal government has been growing in size and scope far beyond what the original framers of the constitution ever intended.

Commonsense could even be brought to bear on this interpretation that the framers of the Constitution could not have intended that even before prima facie determination has been made, or

what the framers of the constitution really intended was that confidentiality and privacy should apply to impeachment proceedings under this article.

To this end, the framers of the Constitution provided that anytime Government intends to enter into any agreement with any foreign entity that has economic or business interest, the agreement must be subject to prior parliamentary approval or ratification before it can have any legal effect.

The executive has been more powerful than the charter framers might have intended in large part because the legislature has been less powerful.

I examine the reasoning of the Supreme Court (SC) and demonstrate how the judgment failed to do justice to the relevant provisions of the Constitution resulting in far - reaching consequences beyond those intended by the framers of the 1992 Constitution.

While the original intent of section 7 as a whole is arguably irrelevant, the framer's intended meaning of «principles of fundamental justice» is surely relevant since the phrase had no «public» meaning at the time of its adoption, and, aside from its inclusion in the Canadian Bill of Rights, was not a familiar term of art.

Since Section 230 preexisted that statutory scheme, the Framers could not have intended for the Section to apply only when the General Assembly enacts a budget bill.

Field J commented: «I must confess that I reach this conclusion without regret, for I can not believe that the framers of the Regulations or the 1993 Directive intended that someone with the bargaining power of Mr Kufner and who procures the purchase of the component parts of a business at the cost of several millions of Euros should have the protection afforded by the legislation.»

Remember, contracts / constitutions are deemd to mean legally what the «framers» intended them to mean.

When tribunal members are made to squirm under the microscope of media and public scrutiny when ruling on a contentious issue of legal veracity, and not just on political expediency, they often will choose to err on the side of the strict interpretation of the legislation as it was intended to be interpreted by its framers, and not by another legal analyst with awarded limited power who wants to twist the original intent into a shape that suits his / her political spin (at that particular point in time) to the detriment of his / her chosen target, which target was actually chosen by a third - party legal analyst with a vested interest.