Sentences with phrase «with constitutional law»

Other legal issues trickled in over time, with constitutional law cases at the end.

What does this have to do with constitutional law?

It gets a good review in the New York Times from Johnathon Mahler, who finds the book for the mostpart accessible by lay readers and, where it becomes dense with constitutional law, worth pushing ahead even so.

Cameron had been Crown counsel with the constitutional law branch of Manitoba Justice since 2004 and was senior Crown attorney of criminal prosecutions from 1989 to 2004.

I even got to work with constitutional law questions at PHMSA, something I never thought many lawyers get the chance to do and certainly not in their first year of practice.

We talk with a constitutional law expert and a gun control advocate about the issue.

Not exact matches

If political leaders differ with judges over existing law, Gorsuch wrote, politicians always had a clear constitutional remedy: «It's called legislation.

But the lesson of the Nixon years is that Congress is the only institution with sufficient power and constitutional resources to stand up to a president who flouts the rule of law.

Since the Jews for Jesus case in the»80s with Sekulow, Ekonomou has done some work for the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit which advocates for religious and constitutional freedoms and is known for supporting Christian causes.

Justice Douglas» opinion struck that law down as inconsistent with a Constitutional right of privacy, notwithstanding that the U.S. Constitution nowhere mentions any such right, let alone even using the word «privacy».

«We disagree with this decision, which is wrong as a matter of constitutional law,» he said last week, according to CNN.

A theory of constitutional law that may be out of fashion in today's legal academy, but that fits comfortably within the modern conservative and the traditional liberal views of the courts, begins with certain basic premises: the existence of law and the possibility of meaningful rules of law.

I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»

The notion that constitutional - moral ideals, like equality and liberty, are ones that reason can analyze and apply comports with the notion of a natural law that is accessible to all people of good will («written on the heart,» in Paul's words).

Even if all parties were to agree that American republicanism is not classically liberal, or that classical liberalism really is ontologically indifferent, or that the laws of nature and of nature's God are the foundation of constitutional order and that these are the same thing as natural law — even if, in other words, all parties were to agree to some version of a pristine American founding harmonious in principle with the truth of God and the human being — returning to the first principles of the eighteenth century isn't much more realistic than a return to the first principles of the thirteenth.

Fishon, I'll call you what you are: you are a troll and a bully, and the RIGHT churches with absolute standards are full of bullies like you who are not content to follow your exacting standards in your churches; you are trying to make total strangers in the world at large subject through them in the secular courts and laws, flipping your middle fingers at the principle of constitutional separation of church and state.

You eliminate the mandate by saying there can be no such mandate and you call the penalty that the law calls a penalty a tax because a tax in the absence of a mandate would be okay, and since there is no longer a mandate, it is possible to reimagine the penalty as a tax and therefore the new law without the mandate and the penalty, but with an optional tax, is constitutional even though that is not the law that Congress actually passed.

In contrast, «cultural relativism,» which Professor Arkes equates with legal positivism, holds that there are «no moral truths which hold their validity across cultures... [So that statutes or constitutional provisions] have the standing of law only because they are «posited» or set down by the authorities in any country.»

But what is the relationship of natural law and history to the text when Chief Justice Taney could find in the due process clause a constitutional right to own slaves and Justice Blackmun, with the concurrence of six of Ids colleagues, found in the same clause a right to an abortion?

Paul, I think, actually agrees with Santorum on what's left to the states, but he's completely clueless on constitutional law.

Speech can be regulated only when it directly conflicts with other constitutional conditions of the democratic process — for instance, freedom of religion and assembly, equal protection under the law, and basic rights to life and liberty.

Thomas and Senator Joseph Biden grappled repeatedly with the concept of natural law and its relation to constitutional law.

Consistent with the Hoover Report's recommendations that the United States had to reconsider «long - standing American concepts of fair play» and «learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies,» the shadow government built alliances between U.S. government officials, the Mafia, and international drug cartels; assassinated many thousands of civilians in Southeast Asia; carried out or attempted assassination of foreign leaders; trained death squads and secret police forces; worked to shore up unpopular dictators like the Shah of Iran and the Somoza dictatorship in prerevolutionary Nicaragua; worked to destabilize «unfriendly» governments such as Allende in Chile and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua; cooperated with the Colombian drug cartel to plot the assassination of the former U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica, Lewis Tambs, with the intention of justifying a U.S. invasion of Nicaragua by blaming his death on the Sandinistas; contracted with the Reagan administration and the National Security Council to find ways of circumventing a congressional ban prohibiting aid to the contras, including the trading of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and money for the contras; illegally shipped weapons from the United States to the contras and allowed returning planes to use the same protected flight paths to transport drugs into the United States; 11 targeted the U.S. people for disinformation campaigns; and helped prepare contingency plans for declaring a form of martial law in the United States that would have formally suspended constitutional freedoms.

Howard C. Anawalt, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Santa Clara, studied the MacBride Report and concluded that the proposals of the Commission were consistent with the U.S. Constitution:

Richard Posner, a judge of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a New York Times op - ed co-authored December 2 with Law Professor Eric Segall, takes Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to task for threatening America with a «majoritarian theocracy» because of his repeated dissents, since Lawrence v. Texas, against the expansion of homosexual «rights» as a matter of Constitutional solicitude.

This is an alienating isolation, for it is both «a natural law and constitutional principle of the human being» to cooperate with his fellow man to promote the common good.

Romer is a prime instance of «constitutional law» made by sentiment having nothing to do with the Constitution.

To those who can not agree with the proposition that individuals have a moral or constitutional right to kill the unborn, or that such a right defines the trans - generational covenant of the American political order, the Court urged acceptance out of respect for the rule of law.

We know that something fundamental is being tampered with when a solid conservative like Sam Ervin of North Carolina denounces the Washington laws as violating constitutional rights.

@Machavity Case law has interpreted the constitutional prohibition on state level participation in foreign affairs more broadly although there are a few things are are permitted (e.g. sister city relationships, budgetary decisions with international implications).

A strong constitutional court that ensures that measures that contravene the constitution can not be passed into law unless the constitution is changed first, along with a process where changing the constitution is difficult.

The most striking fact is that constitutional law academicians were able to draw on the reputation and expertise of legal professional elites through their transnational networks, and with their backing to represent to both parliamentary and Executive politicians that the judicialisation of politics, already normal in the West, was the only legitimate model of judiciary - democratic power relations.

«Where we are is if, if, if,» Cuomo said, reiterating that the political boundaries as proposed by Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats must be fairer and coupled with the reform of a constitutional amendment plus a law for this year.

Removing names by due process, using the quasi-judicial methods outlined in the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2016 (C.I. 91) and by the Supreme Court, is the democratic, constitutional and civilised way to go; unless we are already fed - up with the Rule of Law and Due Process and are longing and yearning for the return of dictatorial rule.

With a substantial majority — many states such as Zamfara, the first to attempt to enact Sharia in 1999, have populations that are well over 95 % Muslim — and a theological obligation to submit to Islamic law, Northerners resent federal intrusion, which they say amounts to the abrogation of their constitutional right to religious freedom.

Arguably, state officials with a legislative role who are not members of the state legislature aren't covered, but this does not reflect common practice and this hole is often filled by a state constitutional provision or a state law or a local government charter.

However, religious establishment (a term that may well be essentially contestable in British constitutional law) necessarily carries privileges with it that can not be afforded uniformly.

A constitutional case in Germany suggested that the new patent arrangements were incompatible with EU law and brought the whole thing to a standstill.

It's because you don't have a gimp leg to stand on in a debate with me about policy or constitutional law.

A constitutional convention has at its heart an assembly of citizens charged with making proposals for the basic rules of the political system, e.g., the voting system or the creation of new national or regional law - making bodies.

A law can easily change with a single legislative vote while a constitutional amendment requires approval by two separately elected Legislatures and then a public referendum, they say.

Instead, a form of English votes for English laws (EVEL) or English institution could co-exist with either regional or local devolution of powers in a comprehensive constitutional settlement.

The people can not ratify any constitutional change in conflict with Federal law, including the U.S. Constitution.

While Krueger's fellow bill co-sponsor Assemblywoman Deborah Glick said she appreciates Cuomo's effort to push for a constitutional convention, she added, «I'd actually prefer to see the governor working closely with the Senate to actually get Senator Klein to make [RHA] a priority for the IDC and to see it actually enacted into law this year.»

Setting aside the many, many issues involved in this Senate letter affair, it is interesting to see the complete focus in the larger media debate on American constitutional requirements for treaties, largely with complete disregard to international law.

The day after the referendum, Cameron raised the issue of «English votes for English laws», with Miliband criticising the move as a simplistic solution to a complex problem, eventually coming out in favour for a constitutional convention to be held after the general election.

Judicial review underpins the rule of law and is central to our constitutional make - up, in which parliament sets out the laws, public bodies implement them and courts make sure that this implementation complies with the law.

In an exit interview with the statewide public television show New York Now, Lippman criticized that age limit set in law, calling it the «constitutional age of senility.»

Add to this the political and legislative workload involved in devolving further powers to Scotland — and potentially revisiting the Smith Commission proposals in the process due to the SNP landslide — while also crafting a working arrangement for English votes for English laws, and it's obvious that the government has more than enough to be going on with as far as constitutional politics is concerned.

City Councilman Dan Halloran represented Ron Paul and impressed the crowd with his knowledge of constitutional law lending credit to his alleged bid for U.S Congress.