Sentences with phrase «under the rule of law -lsb-»

We live under the rule of law here.

Rather, they require economic activity within a free polity, under the rule of law, and through the daily practice of personal habits of wisdom and self - control.

One of these concerns the poor, the other democracy under the rule of law.

Muslim countries, please take note!!!! Especially with regards to # 2, democracy is impossible without equal treatment of ALL faiths under the rule of law.

His message was that a country must live under the rule of law, and that this must guarantee safety for everyone: «Justice is the only solid foundation of any state.

They will have to be solved in some form of world government, some form of general agreement to live under a rule of law against war.

With Independence, these statesmen had to find a way to secure liberty that balanced popular engagement with a national structure, held together under a rule of law.

Under the rule of law, people are treated like... people.

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Ghana believes in the principles that democratic societies provide individuals with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organization, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organize effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity.

«All Nigerians deserve to be treated decently in preservation of their fundamental human rights under the rule of law,» they noted.

«Our support for freedom of expression, development of independent civil society and our conviction that the transparent and consistent application of human rights under the rule of law, are essential prerequisites for China's long term prosperity and stability,» No 10 said before the summit.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.

«We gave power to Parliament to come out with laws and those laws are supreme because Ghana is under rule of law so no judge is above the law,» she said.

By so doing, he is making himself a superintendent and overseer and an appellate court over decisions of a court of competent jurisdiction which under a constitutional democracy like ours and under the rule of law can never be possible.»

«However, since the federal government continues to proclaim loudly that it operates under the rule of law it can not be operated to treat court orders with disdain.

If you want to know what an attack on freedom under the rule of law looks like, peruse the education funding decision.

We know that currently, under the rule of law, corporations are considered people (people who never die).

The importance of human rights as the foundation of the democratic state under the rule of law goes hand in hand with the realisation that fundamental human rights may be mutually contradictory.

They swore an Oath to the Constitution in a country under the rule of law.

Every day, Canadian courts and tribunals help resolve thousands of cases under the rule of law in a civilized, fair, impartial and independent manner.

«finally affirms for all Canadians that the courts of this country are a public good and that under the Rule of Law -LSB-...] access to the courts is for everyone»

Thus, ensuring effective access to justice under the rule of law should not be done according to socialist principles but this means serious resource concerns.

Therefore, the above electronic records provisions refer to the use of standards for, «determining under any rule of law whether an electronic record is admissible,» e.g., s. 31.5 CEA, and s. 34.1 (8) OEA.

Lawyers possess the keys to justice under the rule of law, the keys that open the courtroom door.

He also stated very publicly that Microsoft does not give data to governments unless forced to do so under rule of law.

Can we so readily abandon consistency in legal decision - making and still purport to be functioning under the rule of law?

Perhaps it is folly to expect substantive judicial review to be a simple exercise, since at its core the review must both acknowledge and respect the exercise of legal authority by statutory officials while at the same time ensure such authority is legitimate under the rule of law.

Most societies continue to operate under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court has also held that the duty of the legislature and other lawmaking subjects to revise all legal acts adopted by them before the entry into effect of the Constitution and which still remain in force, also the legal acts adopted by no longer existing institutions after the entry into effect of the Constitution and still remaining in force, which regulate the relations which are assigned to the sphere of regulation of a corresponding law - making subject, as well as legal acts, which had been adopted before the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and remained in force after restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and, after the entry into effect of the Constitution, regulate the relationships, which are assigned to the sphere of regulation of an appropriate legislative subject, and assess their conformity with the Constitution within a reasonably short period, stems from the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (the Constitutional Court's ruling of 29 October 2003).

In addition, on the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

-- the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law.

To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 2 July 1997, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 67 - 1669) of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

-- the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law;

-- the provision «the following persons shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated)» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law;

On the compliance of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 1 and Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 95 - 4088) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 90 - 2014) of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

It should be noted that the legislature may define the content of notions used in laws, however, the requirement to heed the hierarchy of the legal acts which stems from the Constitution, inter alia, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, implies that the content of the notions used in laws may be defined (inter alia, construed) only by means of a law and not by means of a legal act of lower legal force.

To recognise that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland or settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 22 - 347) of Item 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

So, we can see that the idea that juries may act contrary to the will of a judge is nothing new in American law and in fact it is an act of resistance to government oppression that our Founders believed to be fundamental in a Republic that was to remain free under the rule of law, rather than enslaved according to the rule of men.

What responsibilities does the government have under the Rule of Law?