Sentences with phrase «liberty cases in»

Yogi Amin, partner and national head of public law at Irwin Mitchell, then spoke about recent developments in health and social care law, including the Care Act, deprivation of liberty cases in the Court of Protection and end of life cases.

Thus the particular question that has been at the heart of a lot of our religious liberty cases in the past few years — the question of whether institutions in the corporate form are entitled to religious liberty — is not a new question for our political tradition, and the answer that tradition has often offered it is not always friendly to the cause of contemporary traditionalists.

Not exact matches

Amid the flurry of essays on religious liberty occasioned by the Supreme Court's hearing arguments in the Hobby Lobby case, these two sentences from Rick Warren's otherwise excellent op - ed in the Washington Post stood out to me:

I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»

But in any case liberty is the bottom line.

And so a plausible case might be made, despite the absence in ancient Rome of direct resemblances of modern Western constitutional liberty, for a «Ciceronian» support of the idea, and of the lived sentiment, of values to be faithfully commemorated.

If the Supreme Court focuses too narrowly on drugs in this case and misses the larger issue of religious ritual, it could create a devastating precedent for religious liberty.

For one thing, to articulate that case above all in the parlance of religious liberty is to approach our society defensively.

If understanding our case as above all a matter of protecting religious liberty rights means that social conservatives don't think or talk that way anymore, then we are in great trouble.

The emphasis we are compelled now to put upon our first freedom risks distorting the moral message of religious and social conservatives in a number of important ways, and in the process undermining our case for liberty and tolerance.

The state of New York recognized, in the landmark religious liberty case People v. Phillips (1813), that compelling a priest to testify about matters heard during confession would be a fundamental violation of Catholics» religious liberty:

Parkman, like Foote, wrote history from a point of view: in Parkman's case, the Whiggish conviction that, when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham in 1759, North America was won for liberty against popish authoritarianism.

While this last argument has a distinguished pedigree, Stark puts the case in boldest terms: «All that 18th - century philosophizing on things like individualism and liberty was coming straight out of 1,800 years of Christianity.»

In other cases the dangers to liberty in government - operated press and radio have become evidenIn other cases the dangers to liberty in government - operated press and radio have become evidenin government - operated press and radio have become evident.

For in all these cases (even the most beneficial, that of electricity), what did the discovery lead to except the control and utilization of forces already at liberty in the surrounding world?

In other words, the single striking instance in which it sets itself against prevailing mores and wishes is in the case of sexual liberty — a case which is perhaps dubious if it is true that a substantial proportion of the generations which have grown up in the sexual revolution may harbor a secret desire for that «No.&raquIn other words, the single striking instance in which it sets itself against prevailing mores and wishes is in the case of sexual liberty — a case which is perhaps dubious if it is true that a substantial proportion of the generations which have grown up in the sexual revolution may harbor a secret desire for that «No.&raquin which it sets itself against prevailing mores and wishes is in the case of sexual liberty — a case which is perhaps dubious if it is true that a substantial proportion of the generations which have grown up in the sexual revolution may harbor a secret desire for that «No.&raquin the case of sexual liberty — a case which is perhaps dubious if it is true that a substantial proportion of the generations which have grown up in the sexual revolution may harbor a secret desire for that «No.&raquin the sexual revolution may harbor a secret desire for that «No.»

RFRA ensures that religious liberty is taken seriously in such cases.

The case represents the latest volley in a culture war of sorts as courts and academics — not to mention employers and employees — try to reconcile the law's fundamental commitment to two principles increasingly emerging at loggerheads: religious liberty and women's health.

«I am optimistic that these cases will eventually snake their way back up to the Supreme Court and given a full hearing on the merits of the case, I am confident that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of religious liberty,» Ferguson said.

Earlier this year, I accepted an invitation to respond in a public forum to Kyle Duncan, a Becket Fund lawyer involved in the religious liberty cases currently addressing the provisions of the ACA.

In the recent book, Civil Liberties Under Attack, one of the authors mentions the case of a government official with an impeccable record who was placed under charges because unidentified informers asserted he «advocated the Communist Party line, such as favoring peace and civil liberties,» and «his convictions concerning equal rights for all races and classes extend slightly beyond the normal feelings of the average individual «1

The opinion [Scalia continues] in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court's claimed power to create «liberties» that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.

Oberlin College went so far as to advocate «civil disobedience» in the face of the fugitive slave laws (leading to the Oberlin - Wellington Rescue Case — an important event in the history of American civil liberties).

@David Burris - In all cases you cited, he was exercising his freedom and liberties.

While the case was decided 5 — 4, the opinions that accompanied the court's decision also signal that seven of the nine justices agree that businesses can make religious liberty claims in court — an important ruling, said Joshua Hawley, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

In that case, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and four other members of the Court, knocked religious liberty off its rightful pedestal as the «first freedom» and relegated it to the position of a dependent afterthought.

Some of the most high - profile religious liberty fights in recent years, as Laycock mentioned, have been issues of accommodation for LGBT individuals, such as cases involving wedding photographers, caterers, and bakers.

Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

Justice Harry Blackmun himself cited the Founders» intentions in his dissent in the 1990 Smith case: «I do not believe the Founders thought their dearly bought freedom from religious persecution a «luxury,» but an essential element of liberty.»

While sympathizing with her position on marriage, I also find Ryan Anderson's argument, that religious liberty is not in itself absolutely decisive in such a case, to be compelling.

I am yet to see the self proclaimed problem here with Ozil playing wide.Any modern day midfielder can play wide unless you are incredibly one dimensional in which case you shouldn't cost 42 M pounds.David Silva and many others out there are midfielders who begin wide.they are not wingers and Wenger isnt playing Ozil as a winger.He is given the liberty of cutting infield.AFC midfield is not static.players move in and out of midfield.

It makes a compelling case for the freedom that comes from equality of protection, provision and sustenance; and demonstrates clearly how gross inequality in society can damage liberty just as much as tyranny can.

In any case, there have been loads of articles on civil liberties and there are debates in the comments (I've never seen you thereIn any case, there have been loads of articles on civil liberties and there are debates in the comments (I've never seen you therein the comments (I've never seen you there?)

Instead, Tomasi's case for the economic liberties is rooted in two moral claims.

In my case, I turn out to agree with 1) Dennis Kucinich, 2) Mike Gravel and 3) Bill Richardson, who must have strong positions on environmental and civil liberties issues, both of which I listed high.

The party is divided in places, but is still united on many different issues: constitutional reform, the environment, the European Union, internationalism, civil liberties and in many cases, taxation.

Article 14 (1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except in the following cases and in accordance with procedure permitted by law; Article 19 (1) A person charged with a criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court; Article 19 (11) No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law; Article 19 (12) Clause (11) of this article shall not prevent a Superior Court from punishing a person for contempt of itself notwithstanding that the act or omission constitution the contempt is not defined in a written law and the penalty is not so prescribed; and Article 126 (2) The Superior Courts shall be superior courts of record and shall have the power to commit for contempt to themselves and all such powers as were vested in a court of record immediately before the coming into force of this constitution.

We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system.

He has been credited with securing several convictions in high - profile terror cases and is well respected by both national security experts and civil liberties advocates.

Conservatives now remember the «Hobby Lobby case» as one example of how «big government» can endanger liberty in unforeseen ways.

He told MPs he will ask the House of Lords to consider other control order cases in respect of article five of the human rights act, which guarantees the right to liberty, pointing at a possible use of house arrest.

The outcome of this case should spur Nigerians to always insist on the rule of law, no matter the short term inconveniences, as it plays a crucial role in ensuring that political rights and civil liberties are safe and that the equality and dignity of all citizens are not at risk.»

At stake are careers, livelihoods, and in the case of the Huhne fiasco, people's liberty.

Making his case for Tommy in front of a five - judge panel and a packed courthouse, he contended that chimpanzees are so cognitively and genetically similar to humans that they deserve a fundamental right to bodily liberty.

In real life, the case remains unsolved; the movie takes liberties to tell it like it probably is.

They do not make speeches about freedom or liberty in the face of injustice — in this case Prohibition.

In spite of the varying geographic, cultural, and socio - historic backgrounds of these six case studies — not to mention the diverging trajectories — their current political regimes bear many important similarities in regards to their interpretation of both the democratic process and civil liberties, namely that they exist and are tolerated to the extent that they work to the incumbent leadership's advantagIn spite of the varying geographic, cultural, and socio - historic backgrounds of these six case studies — not to mention the diverging trajectories — their current political regimes bear many important similarities in regards to their interpretation of both the democratic process and civil liberties, namely that they exist and are tolerated to the extent that they work to the incumbent leadership's advantagin regards to their interpretation of both the democratic process and civil liberties, namely that they exist and are tolerated to the extent that they work to the incumbent leadership's advantage.

Federal courts typically refuse to create new substantive rights, and in a 1989 case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court «recognized that the [Constitution's] Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests.»

As the United States Supreme Court declared in the 1925 case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, «The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.

Nonetheless, may he rest in peace (see also here), perhaps also knowing that his forever stance of «[making] no apologies for the fact that his methods were too complex for most of the teachers whose jobs depended on them to understand,» just landed his EVAAS in serious jeopardy in court in Houston (see here) given this stance was just ruled as contributing to the violation of teachers» Fourteenth Amendment rights (i.e., no state or in this case organization shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process [emphasis added]-RRB-.