Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. [10] However, it was actually a 2018 blog response by 59-year-old Ohio composer Frank Wilhoit, years after Francis Wilhoit's death. [11]
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.
Justice Douglas reversed for a 5-3 majority. He held that the provisions of 207(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 making the remedies provided in Title II of the Act the exclusive means of enforcing rights based on such part do not preclude a criminal prosecution of the defendants under 18 USC 241, since the exclusive-remedy provision applies only to enforcement of substantive rights to ...
On March 31, 1968, then-incumbent U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson made a surprise announcement during a televised address to the nation that began around 9 p.m., [1] declaring that he would not seek re-election for another term and was withdrawing from the 1968 United States presidential election.
United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc. , 499 U.S. 187 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that private sector policies prohibiting women from knowingly working in potentially hazardous occupations are discriminatory and in violation of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 ...
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed. In an opinion by Harlan, J., it was held that (1) the prosecution on the conspiracy count, being dependent upon an intensive inquiry with respect to the speech on the floor of the House, violated the speech or debate clause of Article I section 6, so as to warrant the granting of a new trial on the conspiracy count, with all elements ...
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed 5-4. In an opinion by Blackmun, J., it was held that the rule announced in Payton v.New York applies to a case which was pending on direct appeal when Payton was decided, Payton not having applied settled precedent to a new set of facts, not having announced an entirely new and unanticipated principle of law, nor having held either that ...
In United States v. Johnson , 221 U.S. 488 (1911), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the misbranding provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act [ 1 ] of 1906 did not pertain to false curative or therapeutic statements but only false statements as to the identity of the drug .