Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may advance its speech without requiring viewpoint neutrality when the government itself is the speaker. Thus, when the state is the speaker, it may make content based choices. The simple principle has broad implications, and has led to contentious disputes within the Supreme Court. [1]
Because the FAR is the law, and government contractors are presumed to be familiar with the FAR, a mandatory clause that expresses a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy will be incorporated into a Government contract by operation of law, even if the parties intentionally omitted it.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), was a seminal First Amendment ruling at the United States Supreme Court.The Supreme Court held that radio broadcasters enjoyed free speech rights under the First Amendment, but those rights could be partially restricted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain the public interest in equitable ...
NSC 68 saw the goals and aims of the United States as sound, yet poorly implemented, calling "present programs and plans... dangerously inadequate". [11] [non-primary source needed] Although George F. Kennan's theory of containment articulated a multifaceted approach for U.S. foreign policy in response to the perceived Soviet threat, the report recommended policies that emphasized military ...
Public policy is an institutionalized proposal or a decided set of elements like laws, regulations, guidelines, and actions [1] [2] to solve or address relevant and real-world problems, guided by a conception [3] and often implemented by programs.
Its conclusion that courts must examine the entire record of an agency's decision established the "hard look" doctrine further expanded upon by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. [7] The "no law to apply doctrine" that originated from Overton Park "engenders confusion among courts and commentators" due to its ambiguity. [4]
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. [1] The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". [2]
Political Question Doctrine, Kelsen theory, legality of government and Constitution, legal order Uganda v. Commissioner of Prisons, Ex Parte Michael Matovu, [ 1 ] [1966] 1 EA 514, is a decision of the High Court of Uganda in which Hans Kelsen 's "General Theory on Law and State" [ 2 ] and the Political Question Doctrine were considered in ...