Sentences with phrase «state public grounds»

Like posting religious edicts on state public grounds?

Not exact matches

He also came to oppose the long - established practice of employing chaplains at public expense in the House of Representatives and Senate on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom **.

What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races than state enactments which, in fact, proceed upon the grounds that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they can not be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens?

He would also come to oppose the long - established practice of employing chaplains at public expense in the House of Representatives and Senate on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom.

Article 11 (2) In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures: (a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status; (b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances; (c) To encourage the provision of necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life

The conditional provision states that matters that may bring the office of the President into public ridicule and even matters that subject the whole country to embarrassment are grounds for impeachment.

The worry for those adopting republican ideas was that as the size of the state increased, such growth stretched the bonds between citizens and their sense of collective identification, removing the very grounds needed for encouraging virtuous activity in the public sphere.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed a bill that banned vapes from school grounds throughout the state in August, then from all public indoor spaces in October.

Plus, Spitzer promises that the state's public authorities will no longer be «patronage dumping grounds... insulated from accountability».

The California law, adopted first, faced two court challenges from SOCE practitioners on the grounds that it violated their free speech rights, but last August a federal appeals court upheld the statute, distinguishing between the rights practitioners enjoy to advocate for the practice in public debate and the limitations on the therapeutic practices they can employ in their professional conduct governed by state licensing.

It is unfortunate that in today's Nigeria, the authorities seem so prepared to waste so much public resources in conducting elections as was the case in the Kogi State supplementary election, which many consider unnecessary, but was conducted on the grounds of a so - called 91,000 voters, who were yet to vote, and who may not even have had the Permanent Voter Cards, PVCs, whereas the total number of people who had PVCs was just 25,000, and APC was already leading by well over 41,000 votes.

43 % of the general public backed the idea on the grounds that, in today's harsh financial climate, the Government should «use the money instead to provide more help to people who need the money more», whereas 48 % said it would be wrong to do this, as «pensioners have spent their working lives paying for their state retirement benefits».

When it comes to fragile states theft of public resources like development money for education and land do create deep seated anger that if not addressed in time can evolve into grounds for seeking alternative means to redress the situation.

In Bush v. Holmes (2006), the state supreme court struck down Florida's Opportunity Scholarship Program, a small voucher program serving fewer than 800 students, on the grounds that it fell afoul of the state constitution's «uniformity» clause, which allegedly prevents the state from funding any program outside of or «parallel» to the public school system.

New York State's highest court has ruled that a school district does not have to provide separate special - education services for handicapped private - school children who refuse on religious grounds to mix with public - school pupils.

The case ricocheted through Colorado to the U.S. Supreme Court and back to Colorado again, where the state supreme court is set to reconsider its ruling against vouchers on the grounds of Colorado's Blaine Amendment, which prohibits public funding of religious institutions.

New York State's highest court, ruling on two cases in which children were allegedly misdiagnosed as retarded, last month rejected in one case the concept of «educational malpractice» as legal grounds on which to redress such plaintiffs» grievances against public agencies.

In Florida they won a victory early in 2006 when that state's supreme court struck down a voucher program on the grounds that the constitutional command of a «uniform... system of free public schools» prohibited any alternative.

Private schools have the right to exist and to operate, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, but the State is not required by the Equal Protection Clause to provide assistance to private schools equivalent to that it provides to public schools without regard to whether the private schools discriminate on racial grounds.

The Minnesota Federation of Teachers has filed suit in federal district court in St. Paul to block the state's 1985 Postsecondary Enrollment Options Act on the grounds that the law violates both the state and federal constitutions by permitting the «direct diversion» of public funds from public schools to church - related colleges and universities.

In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County that the County had to reopen its public schools on the grounds that it was still in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.23 By closing its public schools and subsequently subsidizing private academies that only admitted white students, the County, along with the state board of education and state superintendent, continued to deny black students the rights their white peers were provided.

And a 2013 MinnCAN poll of the state's non-charter public school teachers showed that more than 80 percent agreed that effectiveness should play a role in receiving tenure, and more than 70 percent agreed that lack of effectiveness should be grounds for losing it.

Many of them seemed to have come from the nearby Indiana State Teachers» Association building to oppose DeVos on the grounds of her pro — school choice policies, which the protestors called discriminatory and harmful to public schools and low - income students.

McGrath - Skrzydlewski joined several parents last October to sue the state in a Carson City court, challenging SB302 on the grounds that it diverts money meant «exclusively» for public schools to private schools and other private expenses.

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.&rState'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.&rstate'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.&rstate'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.&rstate to provide for the education of Florida's children.»

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — After - school religious clubs appear to be the next venture of a national group that sought to install a statue of Satan outside two state capitols to protest Christian monuments on public grounds.

You will not, and will not allow or authorize others to, use the Services, the Sites or any Materials therein to take any actions that: (i) infringe on PetSmart Charities» or any third party's copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual or proprietary rights, or rights of publicity or privacy; (ii) violate any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation (including those regarding export control); (iii) are defamatory, trade libelous, threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, stalking, harassment, abusive, tortuous, hateful, constitute discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sex, disability or other protected grounds, or are pornographic or obscene; (iv) interfere with or disrupt any services or equipment with the intent of causing an excessive or disproportionate load on PetSmart Charities or its licensors or suppliers» infrastructure; (v) involve knowingly distributing viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or other similar harmful or deleterious programming routines; (vi) involve the preparation and / or distribution of «junk mail», «spam», «chain letters», «pyramid schemes» or other deceptive online marketing practices, or any unsolicited bulk email or unsolicited commercial email or otherwise in a manner that violate any applicable «anti-spam» legislation, including that commonly referred to as «CASL»; (vii) would be or encourage conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international laws or regulations; (viii) involve the unauthorized entry to any machine accessible via the Services or interference with the Sites or any servers or networks connected to the Sites or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Sites, or attempt to breach the security of or disrupt Internet communications on the Sites (including without limitation accessing data to which you are not the intended recipient or logging into a server or account for which you are not expressly authorized); (ix) impersonate any person or entity, including, without limitation, one of PetSmart Charities» or another party's officers or employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; (x) forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any information transmitted through the Sites; (xi) collect or store personal data about other account users or attempt to gain access to other account users» accounts or otherwise mine information about other account users or the Sites, or interfere with any other user's ability to access or use the Sites; (xii) execute any form of network monitoring or run a network analyzer or packet sniffer or other technology to intercept, decode, mine or display any packets used to communicate between the Sites» servers or any data not intended for you; (xiii) attempt to circumvent authentication or security of any content, host, network or account («cracking») on or from the Sites; or (xiv) in PetSmart Charities» sole discretion, are contrary to PetSmart Charities» public image, goodwill, reputation or mission, or otherwise not in furtherance of our Vision of a lifelong, loving home for every pet.

First of all, I spent much of the 1980s testifying at state public utility commissions against new nuclear power plants on economic grounds only.

The former secretary of state was first asked a «yes or no» question about banning the extraction of fossil fuels from public grounds.

The latter judgment reiterates a similar point in substantive terms: not only can Member States organize transmission system operators as public companies, they can also impose additional obligations on energy providers, if these requirements are justified on overriding grounds of the public interest.

Member States may design the corporate architecture of certain companies in ways that deviate from the general system laid down in their respective corporate laws if these alterations are justified on overriding grounds in the public interest.

What Article 28 (3) with its omission of public policy grounds seems to suggest in my view is that — to a certain extent — the mere fact of a 10 years residence has created a link between the EU citizen and the host Member State that is similar to the link between a national and its state; as a consequence expulsion can only be a valid means if this link is deliberately destroyed by the EU citizen; this would be the case of a serious security threat, i.e. an individual determined to engage in actions that jeopardize the security of the host Member State's society at large, which could indeed be the case of organized cState that is similar to the link between a national and its state; as a consequence expulsion can only be a valid means if this link is deliberately destroyed by the EU citizen; this would be the case of a serious security threat, i.e. an individual determined to engage in actions that jeopardize the security of the host Member State's society at large, which could indeed be the case of organized cstate; as a consequence expulsion can only be a valid means if this link is deliberately destroyed by the EU citizen; this would be the case of a serious security threat, i.e. an individual determined to engage in actions that jeopardize the security of the host Member State's society at large, which could indeed be the case of organized cState's society at large, which could indeed be the case of organized crime.

The issue of the case in P.I basically comes down to the need for the Court to clarify when EU citizen permanent residents can be sent back to their Member State of nationality, which, in turn, necessitates answering the question about the meaning of the «imperative grounds of public security».

The Court seems to mainly render the concept of «imperative grounds of public security» applicable here due to the particularly heinous nature of the crimes committed by Mr I, opting to leave it «open'to Member States to regard crimes as particularly threatening based on the «particular values» of their respective legal orders.

In Krohn v Director of Public Prosecutions [1997] EWHC 286 (Admin), where the lawfulness of a s 18 search was in issue after a senior officer had failed to make a record in writing of the grounds of the search and the nature of the evidence sought as required by s 18 (7), Brooke LJ stated:

Finally, the third paragraph provides that in cases where a Union citizen has resided in the host Member State for the previous 10 years, «imperative grounds of public security» must be brought forward to justify an expulsion decision.

Article 28 (3)(a) provides that an expulsion decision may only be taken against Union citizens legally resident for a period of 10 years on «imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States».

Officially titled An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain bodies, the bill «imposes a duty of religious neutrality, in particular on personnel members of public bodies in the exercise of the functions of office» and also recognizes «the importance of having one's face uncovered when public services are provided and received so as to ensure quality communication between persons and allow their identity to be verified, and for security purposes.»

Sections 1 to 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 enable the secretary of state to make a control order against an individual where she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that individual is or has been involved in terrorism - related activity and it is necessary to impose obligations on that individual for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

Those grounds include if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by mediation under the domestic law of the Contracting State, or if granting relief under the agreement would be incompatible with the public policy of the Contracting State.

Enforcement issues are, however, less likely to arise in relation to investment treaty disputes arbitrated under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (the ICSID Convention), which does not provide for the challenge of ICSID awards before national courts on traditional New York Convention grounds (which include public policy).

R (Bassett Law BC) v Department for Local Government and Communities Successful challenge to the Secretary of State's decision to claw back # 80,000 for a Works contract on the grounds that the Council had acted contrary to the EU Public Procurement Directive.

R (British Medical Association) v Secretary of State for Health (2016) The BMA sought to challenge the Health Secretary's decision to approve a new contract for junior doctors, on the grounds that he had failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Many states, e.g. California, are legally very hostile to non-compete agreements and decline to enforce them on public policy grounds absent some very specific conditions.

The public body's policy would also have to state and define the rules for handling accommodation requests on religious grounds, as follows.

In its judgment in Tsakouridis, the Court held that Article 28 (3) of Directive 2004/38 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fight against crime in connection with dealing in narcotics as part of an organised group is capable of being covered by the concept of «imperative grounds of public security» which may justify a measure expelling a Union citizen who has resided in the host Member State for the preceding 10 years.

That provision states that an expulsion decision may be taken against a Union citizen who has resided on the territory of the host Member State for the previous 10 years only on imperative grounds of public security.

By its question, the national court is asking, in essence, whether acts of sexual abuse of a 14 year old minor, sexual coercion and rape committed within the family constitute imperative grounds of public security which may justify the expulsion of a Union citizen who has lived for more than 10 years on the territory of the host Member State.

It is apparent from recital 23 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38 that the expulsion of Union citizens and their family members on grounds of public policy or public security can seriously harm persons who, having availed themselves of the rights and freedoms conferred on them by the EC Treaty, have become genuinely integrated (23) into the host Member State.

Article 28 (3) of Directive 2004 / 38 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64 / 221 / EEC, 68 / 360 / EEC, 72 / 194 / EEC, 73 / 148 / EEC, 75 / 34 / EEC, 75 / 35 / EEC, 90 / 364 / EEC, 90 / 365 / EEC and 93 / 96 / EEC, is to be interpreted as meaning that sexual abuse of a 14 year old minor, sexual coercion and rape are not covered by the concept of «imperative grounds of public security» where those acts do not directly threaten the calm and physical security of the population as a whole or a large part of it.