Sentences with phrase «secured by the constitution»

Regardless of one's political disposition, today we acknowledge our shared values of Freedom, Justice, and Liberty as secured by our Constitution.

«Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.»

To prevail on his § 1983 claim, Jayne must demonstrate that the named defendants acted under color of state law and deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Nonetheless, under Section 1983, the Smiths must prove that the conduct complained of deprived them of «a right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution or laws of the United States.»

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a person acting under color of state law who subjects any citizen of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution shall be liable to the injured party.

This course focuses on section 1983 of the United States Code, a Reconstruction - era statute that enables private parties to sue any other person who «under color» of law deprives them of the «rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws» of the United States.

Not exact matches

Our Constitution reflects the same principle when it exhorts the state to «promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of national life».

The same Constitution imposes an obligation on government to secure the state and protect every citizen against infringement of their rights by others.

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II «natural born citizen» based on the Kenyan / British citizenship of Barack Obama's father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a «citizen» born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to «support and defend the Constitution of the United States» as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II «natural born citizen».

For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its all citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.

The Florida public - school establishment is suing to repeal the Sunshine State's 13 - year - old school - choice tax credit and its new education savings accounts under the state's Blaine Amendment and its «uniformity clause,» which mandates that «Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools...» The Florida Supreme Court previously struck down the state's voucher program under this provision in Bush v. Holmes (2006), on the grounds that the vouchers «divert [ed] public dollars» from «the sole means set out in the Constitution for the state to provide for the education of Florida's children.»

After protracted court proceedings, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program, a universal voucher program, violated Article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution: «Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, safe, secure and high - quality system of free public schools.

You rhetoric appears equivalent to Parliament's denying the foundational rights under constitution as secured by the Magna Carta (1215).

Copyright laws are enacted pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides that «[t] he Congress shall have Power... to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.»

Initially, Justice Cantil - Sakauye observed that the right to receive attorney's fees awards for securing compensation for injured workers is vested in the Legislature by the California Constitution, with the Legislature vesting these determinations with the WCAB.

As such, the act serves the spirit of the United States Constitution, insofar as it is used «to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).»

He quoted the Constitution to the Justices: «Congress shall have power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings.»

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees» [t] he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,» has been applied to monitoring by government employers.

530, that there will be a decree against the plaintiffs, in order that they may avail themselves of the right secured to them by the constitution and laws, of a revision by the supreme court of the United States; where it is highly proper that this question, depending, as I think it does, mainly upon the constitution of the United States, should be ultimately decided.»

Review of Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, by Randy Barnett

If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution... The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.