Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Louisiana Constitution of 1921, [34] was adopted in convention June 18, 1921. A major concern was validity of some provisions of the Constitution of 1913. Article IV: section 7; Authority to set minimum wage, regulate hours and working conditions for women and girls, with exceptions for agriculture and domestic service.
[7] Venkateswara is known by many names such as Srinivasa (in whom Lakshmi dwells), Narayana (The Primordial One), Perumal (the great lord), Malayappa (the lord of the Hill) and Govinda (Protector of Cows). [8] In Tamil, he is commonly called "Elumalayan", meaning Lord of Seven Hills.
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
Amendment No. 2: Repeal of inactive special funds in Constitution. A vote for would: Remove six inactive funds with zero or near-zero balances from the Louisiana Constitution. A vote against would ...
[14] Bhavadipa is a commentary on Jayatirtha's Tattva Prakasika which, apart from elucidating the concepts of the source text, criticises the allegations against Madhva raised by Appaya Dikshita and grammarian Bhattoji Dikshita.Raghavendra Tirtha's expertise in Purva Mimamsa and Vyakarana is evident from his works on Vyasatirtha's Tatparya ...
The single-subject rule is a rule in the constitutional law of some jurisdictions that stipulates that some or all types of legislation may deal with only one main issue. One purpose is to avoid complexity in acts, to avoid any hidden provisions that legislators or voters may miss when reading the proposed law.
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, [1] [2] is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.The clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the U.S. Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as in the case of other bills.
The Court of Appeals of Oregon, sitting en banc, affirmed their convictions. In doing so, the court relied on a previous Oregon Supreme Court case, State v. Gann, 254 Or. 549 (1969), [16] that had upheld the provision of the Oregon Constitution allowing the 10–2 jury practice as not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. [17]