Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The government intervened and filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of the Act. The district court dismissed the tenant's complaint on the grounds that the Act and the promulgation of the regulation under it were unconstitutional because Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power. [2]
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 ...
Federalist No. 51 addresses the separation of powers, the federal structure of government and the maintenance of checks and balances by "opposite and rival interests" within the national government. One of Federalist No. 51's most important ideas, an explanation of checks and balances, is the often-quoted phrase, "Ambition must be made to ...
"The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object"—covered in No. 23 through No. 36 "The conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government"—covered in No. 37 through No. 84 "Its analogy to your own state constitution"—covered in No. 85
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment.In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable."
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 ...
Federalist No. 78 views the judicial branch as inherently weak because of its inability to control either the money or the military of the country. The only power of the judicial branch is the power of judgment: The Executive not only dispenses the honors but holds the sword of the community.
During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation in 1935 [39] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the federal government to facilitate President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v.