Sentences with phrase «ruling on a constitutional issue»

First, stare decisis is stronger when a court has interpreted a statue, rather than ruling on a constitutional issue.

Not exact matches

On March 27, they'll tackle the issue of how constitutional gay marriage is, delivering a decisive ruling on California's famous Proposition On March 27, they'll tackle the issue of how constitutional gay marriage is, delivering a decisive ruling on California's famous Proposition on California's famous Proposition 8.

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson said: «Today of all days we are reminded, notwithstanding our differences on political and constitutional issues, we are as one in our dedication to democracy, rule of law and harmony between people of all faiths and none.»

Judge Watson should not have reached the constitutional issue and should have ruled on statutory grounds, the Ninth Circuit said.

But, in fact, there has been no diminution in the willingness of state supreme courts to issue strong rulings on students» basic constitutional right to an adequate education.

An Arizona District Court has yet to rule on various constitutional issues related to the ban.

It is this «legislative vacuum» that sparked the litigation and the Court's decision to rule on this important constitutional issue.

2) apart from the fact that CJEU stated that even before EU exercising its power, the MS must still act - when they have the power to do so - in a matter which does not jeopardise or prejudice the EU, so that the mere «potential» competence does have an effect, limitating the MS action, the parallel is that a negative rule is still a rule, so that the existence of the rule makes the matter «regulated»: - as for the JHA, I must say that whilst I agree with you on the merits, I can see the issue raised by the CJEU, since it is quite the same raised by some national Constitutional Courts, i.e. that ECHR standards may be in conflict with national standards and formally speaking the ECHR is a treaty and therefore has a lower rank that national Constititions, and the decision of the ECHR on the interpretation of such standards within the context of the Convention does not bind the national Constitutional Court in interpreting the national Constitution standards: e.g..

1) the Court argument is different: it goes «If the Treaty has a rule on whether a matter is subjuct to judicial review or not, you can't take the issue outside the Treaty» - it stems from EU being not a mere Intl org (where your argument would apply) and it is more like a constitutional limitation (i.e. To modify the rule you have to change the Trety, you can't do that with an intl agreement).

1) we agree to disagree:) 2) supremacy of EU law for the EU system is the equivalent of the hard core of constitutional values that some national Courts defend against EU (and ECHR)- it is not a matter of «legitimacy» or «patriotism» but of using a «lower rank» instrument (accession treaty) to interfere with a treaty rule: the identical issue is for States who have a «rigid» constitution (alike the Treaty binds the CIEU): the accession treaty to ECHR or EU has a «lower rank» than the Constitution itself, so that the national Constitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwconstitutional values that some national Courts defend against EU (and ECHR)- it is not a matter of «legitimacy» or «patriotism» but of using a «lower rank» instrument (accession treaty) to interfere with a treaty rule: the identical issue is for States who have a «rigid» constitution (alike the Treaty binds the CIEU): the accession treaty to ECHR or EU has a «lower rank» than the Constitution itself, so that the national Constitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwConstitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwhich prevails.

Although most of us are not constitutional law experts and do not work on immigration issues, we can as individuals help to promote the rule of law.

More broadly, this ruling will be studied closely by constitutional lawyers as it addresses a number of central issues, including the interplay between the Government's executive powers in international law and legislative sovereignty, the powers of the Court to supervise the exercise of prerogative powers particularly where existing law or rights are affected, and the fundamentally political, not legal, nature of the Sewel Convention on consultation of devolved legislatures.