Sentences with phrase «judicial power of»

One of the oldest Supreme Courts, that of the United States of America, was established in 1789, by Article III of that country's Constitution, which vests it with the «judicial power of the United States».

So this section refers to the judicial power of the United States.

Just because something isn't within the judicial power of the United States, doesn't mean it's not within the judicial power of New York, which is what New York state courts exercise.

It begins, «The judicial Power of the United States...».

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The judicial power of this State is vested in a court system, comprising a Supreme Court, a court of appeals, district courts and justices of the peace.

Article III of the Constitution says this: «The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.»

The judicial power of the United States is a constituent part of those concessions — that power is to be exercised by courts organized for the purpose, and brought into existence by an effort of the legislative power of the Union.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

They are specified in the second section of the third article, where it is ordained that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to ten descriptions of cases, viz., 1st.

It is, however, a sufficient answer to say that our Constitution most certainly contemplates, in another branch of the cases enumerated, the maintaining a jurisdiction against a State, as defendant; this is unequivocally asserted when the judicial power of the United States is extended to controversies between two or more States; for there, a State must, of necessity, be a defendant.

The judicial power of the US is ultimately vested in one Supreme Court pursuant to Article III of the federal Constitution.

This controversy is supposed to be brought before those vested with the judicial power of the United states.

«The judicial power of the United states shall extend, to controversies between two states.»

Having first decided that they were bound to consider the sufficiency of the plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and having decided that this plea showed that the Circuit Court had not jurisdiction, and consequently that this is a case to which the judicial power of the United States does not extend, they have gone on to examine the merits of the case as they appeared on the trial before the court and jury on the issues joined on the pleas in bar, and so have reached the question of the power of Congress to pass the act of 1820.

I consider, therefore, that, when there was a plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in a case brought here by a writ of error, the first duty of this court is sua sponte, if not moved to it by either party, to examine the sufficiency of that plea, and thus to take care that neither the Circuit Court nor this court shall use the judicial power of the United States in a case to which the Constitution and laws of the United States have not extended that power.

It is alleged by the defendant in error in this case that the plea to the jurisdiction was a sufficient plea; that it shows, on inspection of its allegations, confessed by the demurrer, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri; that, upon this record, it must appear to this court that the case was not within the judicial power of the United States as defined and granted by the Constitution, because it was not a suit by a citizen of one State against a citizen of another State.

This being a fundamental law of the Federal Government, it rests mainly for its execution, as has been held, on the judicial power of the Union, and so far as the rendition of fugitives from labor has become a subject of judicial action, the Federal obligation has been faithfully discharged.

If we defer to political authority, there can be none higher than the three branches of the legislative power; if to judicial authority, the highest is the solemn judgment of the members of the court, in which is vested the supreme judicial power of the state.

Article V of the Texas Constitution vests the judicial power of the state and describes the Court's jurisdiction and sets rules for judicial eligibility, elections, and vacancies.

In these courts is vested the judicial power of the United States.

«The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia....»

And we beg leave to add with all due deference that no decision of any court of the United States can under any circumstances, in our opinion, agreeable to the Constitution, be liable to a reversion or even suspension by the legislature itself, in whom no judicial power of any kind appears to be vested but the important one relative to impeachments.»

Politics or philanthropy may impel them to pass it, but when their objects can be effectuated only by this Court, they must not expect its members to diverge from it when they can not conscientiously take the first step without breaking all the high obligations under which they administer the judicial power of the Constitution.

«They have vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress shall establish «the judicial power of the United States.»»

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.»

By selling the bonds to Monaco, investors were trying to get around the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says, «The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.»

Speaking to Accra - based Joy FM, Sefa Kayi said politicians who do wrong with impunity incite ordinary Ghanaians against judicial powers of state.

Even this cursory view of the judicial powers of the United States leaves the mind strongly impressed with the importance of them to the preservation of the tranquillity, the equal sovereignty, and the equal right of the people.

After describing, generally, the judicial powers of the United States, the Constitution goes on to speak of it distributively, and gives to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, among other instances, in the case where a State shall be a party; but is not a State a party as well

Not exact matches

Trump has harshly criticized the federal judge in Washington for his decision and a top White House aide on Sunday accused the 9th Circuit of a «judicial usurpation of power.»

In appropriate cases, small business owners who have been victims of crime can use the power of the criminal judicial system to recover financial losses at little or no additional expense.

A meeting of the Supreme Court's party committee on Wednesday said China would draw boundaries with the West's notion of «judicial independence» and «separation of powers», the state - run China News Service said.

Homebuyers in the state will likely get a deed of trust which allows lenders to bypass a judicial foreclosure and instead initiate a «power of sale» foreclosure by simply hiring a third party to auction the home.

But that characterization is not obviously true, and for a court to adopt it is an aggressive exercise of judicial power.

The power of a court to invalidate unconstitutional laws — «judicial review» — has been a feature of our government from the outset.

Among them are the rights to: bullet joint parenting; bullet joint adoption; bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); bullet status as next - of - kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries; bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; bullet inheritance of jointly - owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans» discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling; bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; bullet decision - making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; bullet crime victims» recovery benefits; bullet loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders; bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; bullet and more...

And second — and consequently — in practice the interpretation and application of the law become a function of whatever happens to suit the tastes of those who determine cultural values and wield judicial power.

Readers of First Things should by now be well - acquainted with the heated national debate - in part inspired by these very pages - over the role and legitimacy of the modern Supreme Court, armed with the power of judicial review, in a country that proclaims itself to be self - governing.

Defenders of the Supreme Court's infamous pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, for example, advanced precisely this view of judicial power.

Arising from the court's interpretation of the amendment were new judicial powers that tended to absolutize the liberty of the individual.

In his dissent, though, Justice Hugo Black warned of this new application of judicial power:

... (Morsi) formally gave himself open - ended powers to make decrees that are immune from judicial oversight (therefore barring any legal recourse against them), giving himself license to do pretty much anything else he pleases in the name of national security.

A complex modern democracy is at a serious disadvantage in dealing with autocratic states as well as in expeditiously conducting its own internal affairs, unless it possesses strong executive powers which are not hedged about in matters of detailed policy and administration by legislative and judicial agencies.

The solution to the crisis was indeed political, involving police power and negotiation among contending political leaders but not judicial rule - making, adjudication, or the writ of amparo.75

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation, executive policy, and judicial expansion mobilized the power of the state to effectively crush racist practices, especially in the South.

Even Court watchers who favored legislative liberalization of abortion law were inclined to agree with dissenting Justice Byron White that the case represented an extraordinary judicial power grab.

In the days of the kingdoms the priesthood enjoyed secular power through its judicial functions.