Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy. [11] Currently no federal law takes a holistic approach to privacy regulation. In the US, privacy and expectations of privacy have been determined via court cases.
This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies.The specific problem is: both sourced and unsourced criticisms of the country's human rights record (major WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE issues; the article should not resemble a database for every possible criticism of the U.S. human rights record found on Google; instead, it should rely on reliable sources, preferably ...
[6]: 113 The Declaration has proven an influential and globally impactful statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...
Every year, each of the 50 United States state supreme courts decides hundreds of cases. Of those cases dealing with state law, a few significantly shape or re-shape the law of their state or are so influential that they later become models for decisions of other states or the federal government, or are noted for being rejected by other jurisdictions.
The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:
The Civil Rights Cases, 3 (1883), were a group of five cases in which the Supreme Court held that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not empower Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals. The holding regarding the 13th Amendment was overturned by the Court in the 1968 case Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
This was a landmark case, prior to this, private citizens were permitted to litigate public rights. 9–0 Frothingham v. Mellon: 1923: Held that the generalized injury of higher taxation overall was insufficient to give a taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending. Considered the genesis of the doctrine of standing. [2] 9–0 Poe v. Ullman ...