Sentences with phrase «on constitutional law from»

Five of these law courses will start in the near future, including one on English Common Law from the University of London and one on Constitutional Law from Yale University.

Not exact matches

The law, known as Senate Bill 4, is slated to take effect Sept. 1, but has been challenged in court by rights organizations and localities that say the law infringes on local governments» constitutional rights, and will sow fear through immigrant communities by dissuading people from reporting crimes or testifying as witnesses out of fear they will be deported.

Proposition 14 was a proposed constitutional amendment placed on tlie ballot by real - estate leaders, designed to repeal an existing open - housing law and to prevent any future Legislature from passing such a law.

Consistent with the Hoover Report's recommendations that the United States had to reconsider «long - standing American concepts of fair play» and «learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies,» the shadow government built alliances between U.S. government officials, the Mafia, and international drug cartels; assassinated many thousands of civilians in Southeast Asia; carried out or attempted assassination of foreign leaders; trained death squads and secret police forces; worked to shore up unpopular dictators like the Shah of Iran and the Somoza dictatorship in prerevolutionary Nicaragua; worked to destabilize «unfriendly» governments such as Allende in Chile and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua; cooperated with the Colombian drug cartel to plot the assassination of the former U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica, Lewis Tambs, with the intention of justifying a U.S. invasion of Nicaragua by blaming his death on the Sandinistas; contracted with the Reagan administration and the National Security Council to find ways of circumventing a congressional ban prohibiting aid to the contras, including the trading of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and money for the contras; illegally shipped weapons from the United States to the contras and allowed returning planes to use the same protected flight paths to transport drugs into the United States; 11 targeted the U.S. people for disinformation campaigns; and helped prepare contingency plans for declaring a form of martial law in the United States that would have formally suspended constitutional freedoms.

«Private institutions that dissent from today's reformulation of marriage must be prepared for aggressive legal attacks on all fronts,» Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School, told Inside Higher Ed for its exploration of the consequences for Christian colleges.

The opinion was of a kind we are used to seeing by now from Justice Kennedy: long on windy rhetoric about «dignity» and ad hominem attacks on the basic human decency of the law's defenders, and short on actual coherent legal reasoning from recognizable constitutional principles.

Such a view of law would permit for - profit corporations to have the moral culpability of criminal convictions, take moral views on a slew of ethical concerns, and let corporations exercise other constitutional guarantees as persons while inexplicably siphoning off only for - profit corporations from religious protection.

And when it comes to immunizing such «choices» from legal restriction or even private remonstration, the Court's liberals can be counted upon to flip on the switch of what Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in dissent, describes as «the ad hoc nullification machine that [is] set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of the highly favored practice of abortion.»

The same could be surmised from the conduct and discourse of the Committee Chair himself, who recently chose to start up a «lively and passionate public debate» on codification on the academic blog of the United Kingdom Constitutional Law Association — hardly likely to be read by any «public» other than public law academiLaw Association — hardly likely to be read by any «public» other than public law academilaw academics.

The Parliamentary Under - Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): Ministers have received two letters and one Parliamentary Question from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, answered by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 29 September 2008 (Official Report, col. WA416) specifically about the presence of Law Lords in the House of Lords since the passing of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.»

Finally, I think I should mention that almost all of this information came from the fourth edition of Erwin Chemerinsky's excellent casebook on Constitutional Law.

The «case or controversy» clause of the Constitution prohibits the courts not only from rewriting statutes, but from even issuing an advisory opinion on whether a law or action would be Constitutional were it to be implemented.

In his veto message, Cuomo wrote he is blocking the bill from becoming law based on similar constitutional concerns he raised last year.

He said, «The trial judge distinguished the Lagos State case from the present one, and held that whereas the court of Appeal so held against Lagos State environmental sanitation days on the ground of same not being a creation of law thus could not be enforced against the plaintiff therein, whereas the Oyo State environmental sanitation days are held pursuant to the provisions of the Oyo State Environmental Law of 2012, 2015, and regulations made thereunder, making the Oyo State exercise legal and constitutional unlike the scenario created in the Lagos calaw thus could not be enforced against the plaintiff therein, whereas the Oyo State environmental sanitation days are held pursuant to the provisions of the Oyo State Environmental Law of 2012, 2015, and regulations made thereunder, making the Oyo State exercise legal and constitutional unlike the scenario created in the Lagos caLaw of 2012, 2015, and regulations made thereunder, making the Oyo State exercise legal and constitutional unlike the scenario created in the Lagos case.

Teachout, a 42 - year - old constitutional - law professor at Fordham University, is taking on New York governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary on September 9, from far to his left, in what started as a third - party bid.

Mr. Lopez has defended numerous school districts, charter schools, other governmental entities and private employers from claims under state and federal constitutional claims, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, workers» compensation retaliation, the Texas Whistleblower Act and state law tort claims.

The Fund for Women's Equality is a charitable organization, working to raise awareness on gaps in the law that leave women without legal recourse from sex discrimination, and developing educational resources on the need for a constitutional provision to protect and promote equal rights for women.

He has written extensively about electricity regulation, on issues ranging from electric vehicles to Constitutional challenges to states» energy laws.

He has a background in electricity regulation, on issues ranging from electric vehicles to constitutional challenges to states» energy laws.

The legal opinion provided to the law society on Nov. 16, 2016, which I've made available here, spells out the constitutional basis far more clearly than anything I've seen thus far, including some quite embarrassing commentary from legal academics (i.e. Pardy).

Delay in Our Justice System Arising from Developments in Impaired Driving Defense Paul Doroshenko, Lawyer, Acumen Law Corporation STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Study on matters pertaining to delays in Canada's criminal justice system September 27, 2016 Metropolitan Hotel Vancouver Introduction Thank.ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Study on matters pertaining to delays in Canada's criminal justice system September 27, 2016 Metropolitan Hotel Vancouver Introduction Thank.on matters pertaining to delays in Canada's criminal justice system September 27, 2016 Metropolitan Hotel Vancouver Introduction Thank...

It is arguable that software programs are immune from state bar and legislative regulation on constitutional grounds and require no exemption from the definition of the practice of law to be sold or distributed in the stream of commerce.

139] This is interesting, because as far as I am aware the CJEU has not yet held that Member States are able to derogate from provisions of secondary EU law on the basis of their national constitutional identity.

It was apparent from the outset that the Court's more conservative members were most interested in (a) finding that no one had a right to bring the constitutional challenge, at least at this stage, (b) putting off a challenge until the law has actually been enforced or at least until just before election day, or (c) salvaging as much as possible of the Indiana photo ID requirement on the theory that voter fraud is a problem that states have a legitimate right to try to solve.

Thus, from the perspective of the United Kingdom's domestic legal order, the Treaties are an overriding source of domestic law which are conditional on constitutional approval; from the European Union's own perspective the Treaties are the fundamental «constitutional charter» of the new and autonomous European legal order, and from the perspective of international law the Treaties are the source of obligations in the international plane between the contracting Member States.

The majority decision of the justice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court may be set to become the «final statement» on the presence of EU law in the UK constitutional order in both senses of the word: the Miller case may well prove to be chronologically the final time that the UK's highest court is called upon to interpret the nature of EU law before the United Kingdom's putative withdrawal from the European Union; in the other sense of the word, the dicta in the case may serve to be the final and definitive statement in an ongoing 40 year constitutional saga initiated by the United Kingdom's accession to the European Union's predecessor in 1973.

My comments start from three propositions which are rooted in constitutional theory: (1) absent constitutional objection, legislation binds; (2) administrative decision - makers enabled by statute can only go so far as their home statute allows (3) it is a court's job, on any standard of review, to enforce those boundaries; in American terminology, to «say what the law is» (Marbury v Madison; Edmonton East, at para 21).

The accusations came after a 2005 constitutional law class in which Peltz, a nationally known authority on the First Amendment and freedom of information, was described as having criticized affirmative action and having displayed a belittling satirical article from The Onion on Rosa Parks.

In the test case that came before the Supreme Court in 2010, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Court held that it was constitutional to prohibit a group of humanitarian legal professionals (including a retired U.S. judge) «from engaging in certain specified activities, including training PKK members to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully; teaching PKK members to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and engaging in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka.&raqLaw Project, the Court held that it was constitutional to prohibit a group of humanitarian legal professionals (including a retired U.S. judge) «from engaging in certain specified activities, including training PKK members to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully; teaching PKK members to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and engaging in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka.&raqlaw to resolve disputes peacefully; teaching PKK members to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and engaging in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka.»

Are lectures on evidence or constitutional law very different from one Canadian law school to the other?

In her post, «Mellowing on Miers,» Althouse wonders aloud whether someone from outside the academy of constitutional law could open the judiciary's eyes:

In addition, on the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thConstitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of llaw, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under thconstitutional principle of a state under the rule of lawlaw.

And it goes to the very limits of its logic, by questioning whether even an appropriate amendment of the Treaty would make it possible to overcome the arguments which prevent regulatory powers from being conferred on agencies or whether there are, in other words, underlying principles in Community law that are not susceptible of constitutional amendment, which can not be reconciled with recognition of regulatory powers in the hands of bodies other than the three institutions.

Even in cases on direct appeal from a state court, when the decision below leaves unresolved questions of state law or procedure which bear on federal constitutional questions, we dismiss the appeal.

Proceedings for judicial review have been brought in the High Court of Justice in London before The Lord Chief Justice, The Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales in order to obtain a declaration from the Court on whether, under UK constitutional laws, the Government can lawfully use prerogative powers to give notification to the EU under art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without the Parliament's formal authorisation.

Two leading Constitutional Law Profs, Jack Balkin (Yale) and Eric Posner (Chicago) face off on BloggingHeads.tv debating various aspects of Liberty vs. Security, focusing on whether or not we live in a time of emergency, the threat from government in a surveillance state and what it means for our civil liberties.

From 1976 to 1989, Bill was an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group, where he litigated law reform cases on state and federal constitutional law, antitrust and administrative law, voting rights, product liability, nuclear power, and food and drug law, and where he argued dozens of appellate cases, including several in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This recent post from the Supreme Court of Tennessee Blog reports on an interesting constitutional challenge to the severe mandatory sentence that goes with the application of Tennessee's «Drug Free School Zone» law.

It is arguable that software programs are immune from state bar and legislative regulation on constitutional grounds and require no exemption from the definition of the practice of law in order to be sold or distributed in the stream of commerce.

This post will highlight four of Justice Martin's decisions that we have blogged on over the years, in areas ranging from constitutional and health law, to civil litigation and vexatious litigants, to bankruptcy law and oil and gas assets, to homicide and sexual assault law.

The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.

Further to that, among the tweaks I'm considering for my first - year Constitutional Law course this spring is an idea I'd «borrow» from Stephen Colbert — apropos his «Better Know a District» segments on The Colbert Report, I thought it might be fun to begin each of my 39 class sessions by giving the students background and biographical information on a specific Supreme Court Justice who's particularly relevant to that day's class (via Powerpoint — duh!).

The Italian constitutional Court has upheld national rules which had been judged by the ECHR as contrary to the Convention, arguing that such rules nevertheless protected a different constitutional principle of the national constitution and the convention could not modify the constitution, beng it a lower rank act - so from a theoretical point of view the CJEU adopts the same approach: the ultimate decision on whether a EU act is in compliance with EU law must be taken within EU only (to make a parallel, think of the CJEU approach for WTO decisions: despite an action being contrary to WTO as decided by the appellate body, nonetheless individuals can use such illegality as a ground to void the action within the EU system)

MICHAL OVÁDEK reports on the efforts of Slovakia to get rid of a blatantly unjust amnesty law from the era of authoritarian president Vladimir Meciar in the 1990s, including a constitutional amendment and a recent judgment of the Constitconstitutional amendment and a recent judgment of the ConstitutionalConstitutional Court.

The Committee acknowledges that this approach «is not without constitutional costs», noting, for instance, that it would shield retained direct EU law from strike - down on HRA grounds (something that is already anticipated by the Bill) and from judicial review on common law grounds.

Born 1952; graduated in law from St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (1975); Doctor of Laws (1979); Lecturer (1977 - 84), Senior Lecturer (1984 - 90) and then Professor at St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (1990 - 2013); Dean of the Faculty of Law of St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (1988 - 91); member of the Council on Legislation at the Bulgarian National Assembly (1995 - 97); Jean Monnet Professor at the New Bulgarian University (2002 - 05); Chairman of the Council of Legal Advisers to the President of Bulgaria (2002 - 03); Judge (2003 - 09), then President (2009 - 12), of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court; Head of the Constitutional Law Department at the Faculty of Law of St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (2013 - 16); member (2006 - 16) and Vice-President of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (2013 - 15); member of the Constitutional Council at the Bulgarian Ombudsman (2015 ‑ 16); editor of a number of legal journals; author of numerous legal publications; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 19 September 20law from St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (1975); Doctor of Laws (1979); Lecturer (1977 - 84), Senior Lecturer (1984 - 90) and then Professor at St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (1990 - 2013); Dean of the Faculty of Law of St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (1988 - 91); member of the Council on Legislation at the Bulgarian National Assembly (1995 - 97); Jean Monnet Professor at the New Bulgarian University (2002 - 05); Chairman of the Council of Legal Advisers to the President of Bulgaria (2002 - 03); Judge (2003 - 09), then President (2009 - 12), of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court; Head of the Constitutional Law Department at the Faculty of Law of St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (2013 - 16); member (2006 - 16) and Vice-President of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (2013 - 15); member of the Constitutional Council at the Bulgarian Ombudsman (2015 ‑ 16); editor of a number of legal journals; author of numerous legal publications; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 19 September 20Law of St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (1988 - 91); member of the Council on Legislation at the Bulgarian National Assembly (1995 - 97); Jean Monnet Professor at the New Bulgarian University (2002 - 05); Chairman of the Council of Legal Advisers to the President of Bulgaria (2002 - 03); Judge (2003 - 09), then President (2009 - 12), of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court; Head of the Constitutional Law Department at the Faculty of Law of St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (2013 - 16); member (2006 - 16) and Vice-President of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (2013 - 15); member of the Constitutional Council at the Bulgarian Ombudsman (2015 ‑ 16); editor of a number of legal journals; author of numerous legal publications; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 19 September 20Law Department at the Faculty of Law of St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (2013 - 16); member (2006 - 16) and Vice-President of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (2013 - 15); member of the Constitutional Council at the Bulgarian Ombudsman (2015 ‑ 16); editor of a number of legal journals; author of numerous legal publications; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 19 September 20Law of St Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia (2013 - 16); member (2006 - 16) and Vice-President of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (2013 - 15); member of the Constitutional Council at the Bulgarian Ombudsman (2015 ‑ 16); editor of a number of legal journals; author of numerous legal publications; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 19 September 2016.

Jones v. Flowers, 373 Ark. 213 (Ark. 2008)(established, on remand from a U.S. Supreme Court victory in a constitutional challenge to state tax foreclosure procedures, that attorney's fees may be recovered under federal civil rights law even when the plaintiff's original complaint did not cite the federal statute)(briefed, co-counsel)

By the way, did anyone notice when McLachlin CJ spoke at the law school on Friday that she listed China -LRB-!?!?!?) as one of the countries whose constitutional law might be a helpful source from which to draw?

Our Chief Justice has delivered scores of judgments touching on everything from the finer points of contract law, to criminal law, to constitutional issues, including the interwoven roles of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, and the proper duties of each.