Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest".
Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none. [34] In Furman v.
Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase in common law describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to the sanction. The precise definition varies by jurisdiction, but typically includes punishments that are arbitrary, unnecessary, or overly severe compared ...
Restraint, a practice that reduces students’ ability to move, and seclusion, which involuntarily places children in isolation, can now only be used if a student or staff member is in imminent ...
Minimalism: The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied." Last resort rule : The Court will not [rule] upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed ...
The prohibitions of the due process clauses apply only to the actions of state actors and not against private citizens. However, "[p]rivate persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting 'under color' of law.... To act 'under color' of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State.
Lobbying includes approaching a public official in secret, possibly giving them money. But petitioning, as America's founders knew it, was a public process, involving no money. Some litigants have contended that the right to petition the government includes a requirement that the government listen to or respond to members of the public.
It is intended to apply only to those instances where the court recognizes the existence of more than one interpretation and where the decision that the court reaches harms or benefits the defendant to some greater or lesser degree. In that case, the rule requires the court to select the interpretation most beneficial (or least detrimental) to ...