Sentences with phrase «power under the state constitution»

First in his original budget, and then in the 30 - day amendments released last Friday, Cuomo placed controversial ethics and education reforms in appropriations bills, over which the Legislature is afforded very little power under the state Constitution.

Bennett Liebman, government lawyer - in - residence at Albany Law School and former deputy secretary for gaming and racing in the Cuomo administration, told The Alt that while the governor has the power under the state constitution to remove a district attorney from office through a quasi-judicial proceeding, it is «extraordinarily unlikely» that he will do so in this case.

One basis for the challenge is the scope of the commission's power under the state constitution.

The split - recovery statute allocating 60 % of punitive damages award to the state did not violate the right to a remedy, the right to a jury trial, the takings or tax provisions, or the separation of powers under the State Constitution.

Not exact matches

People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Given that Congress jealously guards its powers under the Constitution, such an effort would likely gain the support of representatives from most states, not only those with an economic interest in maintaining NAFTA.

He is now trying to alter the French constitution to increase his powers under a state of emergency, prolong certain of the powers after it is lifted, and remove legal avenues to challenging them.

It has also been reported that Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office under a rarely - used power granted to the Governor by the State constitution.

Cuomo figures in to this episode because under Article XIII of the state Constitution he holds the power to remove the District Attorney.

To protect the Committee's fundamental rights under the United States and New York State Constitutions against the partisan use of state power, the Committee requests that the Court quash the subpoena and issue a protective order directing that the Committee need not respond to the subpoena's remaining demands.&rState Constitutions against the partisan use of state power, the Committee requests that the Court quash the subpoena and issue a protective order directing that the Committee need not respond to the subpoena's remaining demands.&rstate power, the Committee requests that the Court quash the subpoena and issue a protective order directing that the Committee need not respond to the subpoena's remaining demands.»

A statement signed and released on Monday, 22 August by Communications Minister Dr. Edward Omane Boamah said: «The President of the Republic of Ghana, His Excellency John Dramani Mahama, has, in consultation with the Council of State and in exercise of his constitutional powers under Article 72 of the Constitution, remitted the remainder of the prison sentence imposed on three persons: Salifu Maase (alias Mugabe), Alistair Nelson, and Ako Gunn, who were sentenced to four months» imprisonment and a fine of GHS10, 000.00 each for contempt of court.

Its Committee on Basic Education, which investigated the controversial tenure extension, stated that the President had no power under the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to extend the tenure of a permanent secretary, who had served out her full service length and retired in February, 2016.

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 AmendUnder 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 Amendunder the Tenth Amendment.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has overturned a growing list of congressional statutes on the grounds that they intruded into protected spheres of state sovereignty or exceeded Congress's delegated powers under the Constitution.

We write in our capacity as citizens of the Republic of Ghana invoking the powers of this Commission under Article 218 (a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and section 7 (1)(i) of the CHRAJ Act 1993 (Act 456), as amended, which states «to investigate complaints of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, injustice, corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of his official duties», to investigate a case of professional misconduct bothering on official corruption and corruption - related activities involving ACP Mrs. Maame Yaa Tiwaa Addo Danquah, the current acting Director - General of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

I received the petition of the lawyers from the three and they stated all the grounds for which they thought that I should invoke my powers under article 72, narrating every step of the way; the regret they had shown and appealing for mercy; and so I did exactly what the Constitution said I should do.»

The power given to the Federal Government under section 162 (3) of the Constitution, to prescribe the terms and manner of sharing the money in the Federation Account among the federal, state and local governments is a somewhat over-bearing power in a federal system.

The attorney general said that Cuomo has the authority under the state's constitution to give his office the power to to supersede local district attorneys and investigate any crime the governor sees fit.

Mr. Stringer's duties and powers are a matter of the City Charter, which Mr. Cuomo can not alter, but the governor emphasized that housing the homeless is a responsibility of the state under its constitution.

(Syracuse) Howie Hawkins said today that if he was Governor he would use his power under Art. 4, Sec. 3 of the State Constitution to call the legislature into extraordinary session to ensure that they complete work on key issues before taking their six month paid vacation.

After reviewing the material provided by Nevin, Kennedy said in an email that «this unsubstantiated county ordinance does not impact the village's authority to exercise its police power under the [New York State] Constitution in relation to regulating signs on public property.»

They also say that under the state constitution's separation of powers doctrine, the commission, created by Cuomo, does not have the right to probe the legislature.

One person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office, a little - used power afforded the state's chief executive under the state constitution.

He stated that the Committee was not a fault - finding one, and is established under Article 103 of the Constitution with the powers of a High Court and therefore tasked managers of the country's resources to ensure value for money in their expenses on behalf of Ghanaians.

Prof. Dankofa, among other things, in suit KDH / KAD / 236 / 2018 is praying the court to «declare that the action of the respondents (Kaduna State Government and Kaduna Geographic Information Service, KADGIS) in arrogating to themselves the power to punitively sanction the Applicants (Hunkuyi and his Company, Muna Investment Ltd) property, even if the Applicants were purportedly in default of payment of either ground rent or land use charge or for any other reason constitute a gross violation of Applicant Fundamental Human Right guaranteed under section 43 (1) and 46 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and therefore illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.»

In fact, they saw it as a foundational responsibility of any government and determined that it was best left to the states under the Tenth Amendment, which says, «The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.&states under the Tenth Amendment, which says, «The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.&States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.&States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.&States respectively, or to the people.»

The U.S. Constitution lays out a federal approach in which specific powers are enumerated for the national government with all remaining powers — under the Tenth Amendment — reserved to the states or the people.

Because of the balance of powers under the constitution the United States has so far avoided the economically disastrous rush to control of CO2 emissions and move to renewable energy seen in the UK and Germany The resultant increase in electricity prices is now forcing these countries to reconsider their entire energy policy.

«Treating this pipeline facility and company differently than all other regulated projects and entities that operate in Vermont would arguably run afoul of federal pre-emption principles that explicitly bar states from regulating oil pipeline safety; potentially constitute an impermissible attempt to nullify the President's exercise of his foreign affairs power under the U.S. Constitution as reflected in the Presidential Permits issued to Portland Pipe Line and potentially impose an unconstitutional burden on foreign or interstate commerce.»

«Nothing in the Constitution of the United States gives the Congress or the Executive Branch the power to attempt the task of regulating climate, as impossible as that would be under any realistic scenarios.

The only real solution is for the states to exercise their power under Article V of the constitution to propose constitutional amendments that will mandate a balanced budget and in other ways rein in the federal government.

Justice Andrés Ollero highlights in his opinion that, while Spain is bound under Article 93 of the Constitution as a Member State of the EU, he supports the idea set forth in part 3 that the transference of sovereign powers has material limits.

In affirming, both the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court rejected Honda's argument that the punitive damages award violated due process because it was excessive and because Oregon courts have no power to correct excessive verdicts under a 1910 amendment to the State Constitution, which prohibits judicial review of the amount of punitive damages awarded by a jury «unless the court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support the verdict.»

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.»

Nelson reminds me of State v. Lessley, the case from a few years ago which addressed whether the state has the power under the Minnesota constitution to veto a defendant's decision to waive a jury tState v. Lessley, the case from a few years ago which addressed whether the state has the power under the Minnesota constitution to veto a defendant's decision to waive a jury tstate has the power under the Minnesota constitution to veto a defendant's decision to waive a jury trial.

Lord Irvine explained his intention in his second reading speech: «The traditional freedom of the individual under an unwritten constitution... gives no protection from misuse of power by the state... Our courts will develop human rights throughout society.»

A state court is has the power to enforce greater protections to a person claiming rights, relying on the state's constitution, than those guaranteed under the federal constitution.

Therefore states (state, county, municipal all treated as an extension of state power under the US Constitution) are not required to to adhere to the flag code.

Under the French Constitution, tailored for the presidency of Charles de Gaulle, the French head of state has vast powers, including the right to nominate the prime minister, dissolve the National Assembly and set the voting agenda.

The Kansas Senate approved an amendment that would prohibit the courts from ordering more money for schools («The financing of the educational interests of the state is exclusively a legislative power under article 2 of the constitution of the state of Kansas and as such shall be established solely by the legislature.»)

Although it was not necessary for the resolution of the issues in the case, the Court stated that provincial exercises of power that impact rights flowing from Aboriginal title should be analysed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in particular by assessing whether the violation of Aboriginal rights can be justified by the province (at paras 140 - 152).

Thus it will be seen by these quotations from the opinion that the court, after stating the question it was about to decide in a manner too plain to be misunderstood, proceeded to decide it, and announced, as the opinion of the tribunal, that in organizing the judicial department of the Government in a Territory of the United States, Congress does not act under, and is not restricted by, the third article in the Constitution, and is not bound, in a Territory, to ordain and establish courts in which the judges hold their offices during good behaviour, but may exercise the discretionary power which a State exercises in establishing its judicial department and regulating the jurisdiction of its courts, and may authorize the Territorial Government to establish, or may itself establish, courts in which the judges hold their offices for a term of years only, and may vest in them judicial power upon subjects confided to the judiciary of the United States.

Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution, a federal law is binding on all state and local governments so long as Congress duly enacted the law pursuant to one of its limited powers.

«the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or treaties made or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies, to which the United

State courts have also recognized that legislative immunity provisions enshrined in state constitutions also protect this bedrock principle.12 Moreover, as one Florida appellate court noted, legislative immunity is integral to the constitutional separation of powers: «The power vested in the legislature under the Florida Constitution would be severely compromised if [the judicial branch could compel] legislators... to appear in court to explain why they voted a particular way or to describe their process of gathering information on a bill.&rState courts have also recognized that legislative immunity provisions enshrined in state constitutions also protect this bedrock principle.12 Moreover, as one Florida appellate court noted, legislative immunity is integral to the constitutional separation of powers: «The power vested in the legislature under the Florida Constitution would be severely compromised if [the judicial branch could compel] legislators... to appear in court to explain why they voted a particular way or to describe their process of gathering information on a bill.&rstate constitutions also protect this bedrock principle.12 Moreover, as one Florida appellate court noted, legislative immunity is integral to the constitutional separation of powers: «The power vested in the legislature under the Florida Constitution would be severely compromised if [the judicial branch could compel] legislators... to appear in court to explain why they voted a particular way or to describe their process of gathering information on a bill.»

The federal government is ultimately superior (see: federal supremacy clause), however the states manage the vast majority of laws for health and safety internally separately under their constitution and state police power.

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

Of all the courts which the United States may, under their general powers, constitute, one only, the Supreme Court, possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution and of which the legislative power can not deprive it.

«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.