Sentences with phrase «so on a constitutional issue»

Not exact matches

Each concerned a growingly contentious issue in politics, each sought to take it out of politics by deciding it judicially on constitutional grounds, and each did so by basing the decision on the due process clause of the Constitution.

So, on the biggest constitutional, economic, social, cultural and geopolitical issue of the day, Labour had nothing to say to voters in a council area greatly affected by leaving Europe.

«I understand that the constitutional position is that he remains prime minister and that's an issue so he needed to stay on in that role.

You have in your packet a blue sheet that gives you the order of the day, so I won't belabor that too much, but I will just remind you that we're going to start out with a session on history this morning; then go to a lunchtime segment that will focus on some of the relevant federal constitutional issues, including evaluations of the federal attacks on and defenses of the Blaine amendments; then we will finish off the day with a session that will focus on litigation strategy related to these amendments and some of the arguments being made for and against them in that litigation, as well as a focus on how debates over faith - based initiatives and school vouchers are affected by these particular state constitutional restrictions.

The case's procedural history is very complex (the Advocate General referred to it as either Kafkaesque or tilting windmills like Don Quixote, depending on your point of view), so after only a brief factual discussion I will focus on the two major constitutional issues that the Court had to deal with:

This is the third time (yes, indeed) that Turkey's Constitutional Court dealt with this case — each time with identical facts (a woman asking to keep her name upon marriage)-- and the second time it has done so since the European Court of Human Rights delivered a violation judgment against Turkey on the very same 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) 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.

Only a few days after the Court of Justice of the European Union buried the hatchet in the so - called Taricco saga (reported step by step on Verfassungsblog by Bassini and Pollicino — here, here, here — and by myself here), the Italian Constitutional Court issued its decision no. 269 of 2017 (an English translation of the decision is available here).