Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Also, in contrast to most of the Board, Marshall charged that the prosecution of thirty-two right wing opponents of Roosevelt's pre-war foreign policy in the Sedition Trial of 1944 violated the First Amendment. [10] In the years after 1945, Marshall resumed his offensive against racial segregation in schools.
Marshall's opinion lays down the foundations of the doctrine of aboriginal title in the United States, and the related doctrine of discovery. However, the vast majority of the opinion is dicta ; as valid title is a basic element of the cause of action for ejectment, the holding does not extend to the validity of McIntosh's title, much less the ...
The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11, and can also be contrasted with the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of supporting stable right-wing dictatorships that was influential during ...
Supreme Court of the United States Marshall Court Ellsworth Court ← → Taney Court Chief Justice John Marshall February 4, 1801 – July 6, 1835 (34 years, 152 days) Seat Old Supreme Court Chamber Washington, D.C. No. of positions 6 (1801-1807) 7 (1807-1835) Marshall Court decisions The Marshall Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1801 to 1835, when John Marshall ...
The discovery doctrine, or doctrine of discovery, is a disputed interpretation of international law during the Age of Discovery, introduced into United States municipal law by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823).
Marshalling is an equitable doctrine applied in the context of lending. It was described by Lord Hoffmann as: [A] principle for doing equity between two or more creditors, each of whom are owed debts by the same debtor, but one of whom can enforce his claim against more than one security or fund and the other can resort to only one.
Although Justice Louis Brandeis's concurring opinion in Ashwander is the primary case for the modern formulation of the avoidance doctrine, Marshall had cautioned that no questions of "greater delicacy" may be presented to the federal judiciary than those involving a constitutional challenge to a legislative act. [4]
Marshall observed that the Constitution is "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation", and that it cannot be altered by an ordinary act of the legislature. Therefore, "an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." [54] Marshall then discussed the role of the courts, which is at the heart of the doctrine of judicial ...