Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Usually used instead of naming a man's wife as a party in a case. / ˌ ɛ t ˈ ʌ k s ɔːr / et vir: and husband Usually used instead of naming a woman's husband as a party in a case. / ˌ ɛ t ˈ v ɜːr / ex aequo et bono: of equity and [the] good Usually defined as "what is right and good."
I don't see how he can be entirely wrong, approaching it that way. I certainly don't mind the thought of your mother finding me a strong young man. There is neither male nor female, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but, mutatis mutandis, it would be a fine thing. That mutandis! Such a burden on one word!"—Marilynne Robinson, Gilead.
During the debate in Congress, more than one version of the clause was considered. Here is the first version: "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure ... to all persons in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property."
John C. Calhoun agreed, saying that there was "not a word of truth" in the phrase. [24] In 1853 and in the context of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Senator John Pettit, said that the phrase was not a "self-evident truth" but a "self-evident lie". [24] These men were all either slave owners or supporters of slavery.
"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is an aphorism attributed to Percy Bysshe Shelley.In A Defence of Poetry (1821, not published until 1840) Shelley remarked that the promoters of utility had exemplified the saying, "To him that hath, more shall be given; and from him that hath not, the little that he hath shall be taken away.
Within legal civil procedure, prejudice is a loss or injury, and refers specifically to a formal determination against a claimed legal right or cause of action. [4] Thus, in a civil case, dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future.
The first kind of right was alienable: thus Locke neatly derived slavery from capture in war, whereby a man forfeited his labor to the conqueror who might lawfully have killed him; and thus Dred Scott was judged permanently to have given up his freedom.
The right of revolution only gave a people the right to rebel against unjust rule, not any rule: "whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, he is guilty of the greatest crime I think a man is ...