Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In July, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost ruled provisions of Act 10 unconstitutional and denied a motion filed by the Republican-controlled Legislature to dismiss the case.
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.
(The Center Square) – A Kenosha-area school teacher is asking to intervene in an Act 10 lawsuit in order to appeal a Dane County Circuit Court’s decision to overturn the law. Wisconsin ...
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, [1] overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties is an American 2004 political documentary about the legal problems with the PATRIOT Act. [1] It posits that the law, hastily passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, [ 2 ] is used to justify a variety of abuses of civil rights that are guaranteed by the US Constitution .
"Twisting the President's Arm: The Impoundment Control Act as a Tool for Enforcing the Principle of Appropriation Expenditure". Yale Law Journal. 100 (1): 209–228. doi:10.2307/796769. JSTOR 796769. Pfiffner, James P (1979). The President, the Budget, and Congress: Impoundment and the 1974 Budget Act. Westview Press. ISBN 0-89158-495-1.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States.
The American Civil Liberties Union argued that certain parts of the act were facially unconstitutional and sought a preliminary injunction preventing the government from enforcing those provisions. [3] Section 561 of the act required that any facial challenges be heard by a panel of three district judges; that panel granted the injunction. [4]