Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The law, which came to be known as Act. 10, took effect in June 2011. It ended the ability of public-sector unions to negotiate over any issues other than raises, and those raises were capped at ...
“This lawsuit came more than a decade after Act 10 became law and after many courts rejected the same meritless legal challenges," Vos said. "Act 10 has saved Wisconsin taxpayers more than $16 ...
“Despite Act 10 being upheld repeatedly by state and federal courts, an activist Dane County judge decided to issue a ruling suddenly deciding Wisconsin's law is unconstitutional. We will appeal ...
2011 Wisconsin Act 10, also known as the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill or the Wisconsin Budget Adjustment Act, [1] [2] is a controversial law enacted by the 100th Wisconsin Legislature which significantly limited the rights and compensation of state and local government employees in Wisconsin.
Intermediate scrutiny may be contrasted with "strict scrutiny", the higher standard of review that requires narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, and "rational basis review", a lower standard of review that requires the law or policy be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
When a law does not specifically detail the procedure followed by officers or judges of the law. As a guard, a law must particularly detail what officers are to do, providing both for what they must do and what they must not do. Under the doctrine, judges must have a clear understanding of how they are to approach and handle a case.
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency ...
In its strongest form—advocated most notably by James Bradley Thayer—the presumption of constitutionality gives Congress, rather than the courts, the primary responsibility for interpreting the Constitution. This view is in tension with the view of judicial review articulated in Marbury v. Madison, however.