Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Constitutional review, or constitutionality review or constitutional control, is the evaluation, in some countries, of the constitutionality of the laws.It is supposed to be a system of preventing violation of the rights granted by the constitution, assuring its efficacy, their stability and preservation.
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts is a 2012 book by United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and lexicographer Bryan A. Garner.Following a foreword written by Frank Easterbrook, then Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Scalia and Garner present textualist principles and canons applicable to the analysis of all legal texts, following by ...
The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (popularly known as the Constitution Annotated or CONAN) is a publication encompassing the United States Constitution with analysis and interpretation by the Congressional Research Service along with in-text annotations of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. [1]
Section 1 vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts and, with it, the authority to interpret and apply the law to a particular case. Also included is the power to punish, sentence, and direct future action to resolve conflicts. The Constitution outlines the U.S. judicial system.
The United States Constitution and its amendments comprise hundreds of clauses which outline the functioning of the United States Federal Government, the political relationship between the states and the national government, and affect how the United States federal court system interprets the law. When a particular clause becomes an important ...
Theories of constitutional interpretation are different ways of interpreting the Constitution of the United States. Pages in category "Theories of constitutional interpretation" The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total.
The arguments for the Living Constitution vary but can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter and so an evolving interpretation is necessary. [7]
The presumption of constitutionality is linked to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance (the doctrine that courts will not make rulings on constitutional issues if the case can be resolved on a non-constitutional basis) and the rule that courts will not interpret an ambiguous statute to be unconstitutional in the absence of clear ...