Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In constitutional law, constitutionality is said to be the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution ; the status of a law, a procedure, or an act's accordance with the laws or set forth in the applicable constitution. When laws, procedures, or acts directly violate the constitution, they are unconstitutional. All others are considered constitutional unless the country ...
An unconstitutional constitutional amendment is a concept in judicial review based on the idea that even a properly passed and properly ratified constitutional amendment, specifically one that is not explicitly prohibited by a constitution's text, can nevertheless be unconstitutional on substantive (as opposed to procedural) grounds—such as due to this amendment conflicting with some ...
These principles—that federal statutes can only be struck down for unconstitutionality and that the unconstitutionality must be clear—were very common views at the time of the framing of the Constitution. For example, George Mason explained during the constitutional convention that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But ...
The Illinois Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower court ruling that tossed out a law barring political parties from choosing candidates for the General Assembly when they had no one run in a ...
The Constitution does not contain any clause expressly providing that the states have the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional. Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nation
When a law does not specifically detail the procedure followed by officers or judges of the law. As a guard, a law must particularly detail what officers are to do, providing both for what they must do and what they must not do. Under the doctrine, judges must have a clear understanding of how they are to approach and handle a case.
While the order's unconstitutionality in the eyes of many legal experts – who say it violates the 14th Amendment – has garnered the most attention, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and ...
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.