Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court held in 1901 that since the Preamble declares the Constitution to have been created by the "People of the United States", "there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union." [67] The following examples help demonstrate the meaning of this distinction: [68] Geofroy v.
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. The issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The decision narrowly held that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to territories.
The Preamble of the 1865 Alabama Constitution notes one purpose of the document to be to "promote the general welfare", [26] but this language is omitted from the 1901 Alabama Constitution. Article VII of the Constitution of Alaska , titled "Health, Education, and Welfare", directs the legislature to "provide for the promotion and protection of ...
The Insular Cases are a series of opinions by the Supreme Court in 1901 (the first six opinions in 182 U.S., at pages 1–397, all authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, along with various concurring and dissenting opinions by other Justices), about the status of U.S. territories acquired in the Spanish–American War, such as the ...
Various authorities have listed what they consider are the legitimate constituents of the Insular Cases. Juan R. Torruella, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over the Federal Court for the District of Puerto Rico), considers that the landmark decisions consist of six fundamental cases only, all decided in 1901: "strictly ...
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!
The Bosnian Constitutional Court, particularly citing the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada, also declared that the provisions of the preamble of the Bosnian Constitution are invested with a normative force thereby serving as a sound standard of judicial review for the Constitutional Court.
The Supreme Court has largely interpreted the Petition Clause as coextensive with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, but in its 2010 decision in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2010) it acknowledged that there may be differences between the two: This case arises under the Petition Clause, not the Speech Clause.