Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes ..." Thus, state ...
The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) P.L. 98-435, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ee–1973ee-6, is a United States law passed in 1984 that mandates easy access for handicapped and elderly person to voter registration and polling places during Federal elections.
The Constitution does not contain any clause expressly providing that the states have the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional. Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nation
Two facts of life have become impossible to ignore: The U.S. population is aging and the cost to take care of our seniors is surging. By 2030, all 73 million baby boomers will be 65 and older.
"In essence, this money has been stolen from all of us for all these years," said an 84-year-old woman whose late husband's Social Security benefits were slashed. "It's not fair."
Two facts have become impossible to ignore: The U.S. population is aging, and the cost to take care of our seniors is surging. By 2030, all 73 million baby boomers will be 65 years of age and older.
The National Elder Law Foundation was created out of concern that the elderly might have unique legal needs. [15] The 2006 reauthorization of the Older Americans Act included a project called Choices for Independence, to develop consumer-directed community-based (as opposed to congregate segregated choices such as traditional nursing homes ...
A sues B in B's home State of Y, but asks the court there to apply the law of State X. In this situation, it can be argued that State X has chosen to place no limit on recovery in order to protect its citizens and keep its roads safer; while State Y has chosen to place a limit on tort damages to prevent tort abuse and keep insurance costs down.