Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The court rejected the respondents' argument that the anti-authorization provision was a valid preemption of state law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. [31] The Supremacy Clause, the Court pointed out, "is not an independent grant of legislative power to Congress" but "[i]nstead, it simply provides a rule of decision."
FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, is reintroducing a constitutional amendment to cap the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine, amid calls to expand the court. Cruz, now joined by 15 ...
Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber, the rules of which include mechanisms for changing those rules, usually beginning by way of democratic voting. [1] The game demonstrates that in any system where rule changes are possible, a situation may arise in which the resulting laws are contradictory or insufficient to determine ...
In legislative debate, a wrecking amendment (also called a poison pill amendment or killer amendment) is an amendment made by a legislator who disagrees with the principles of a bill and who seeks to make it useless (by moving amendments to either make the bill malformed and nonsensical, or to severely change its intent) rather than directly opposing the bill by simply voting against it.
The Flood Court, he noted, had more than once referred to the clause as the specific issue in Toolson as well, and saw its instant case as similarly limited: "For the third time in 50 years the Court is asked specifically to rule that professional baseball's reserve system is within the reach of the antitrust laws." [300] (emphasis Padova's). [281]
The actions of the Reid Court, and the general practices of Founding-era jurists, make clear that judges at the time when the Second Amendment was drafted and ratified and in subsequent decades ...
The rules and decisions of these bodies might not always be recognized, but it was a world of multilateralism and an attempt, however imperfect, to replicate internationally the governing ...
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property.