Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says "[t]his Constitution" is the "supreme law of the land." The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States.
The Court began by dismissing the parties' characterization of the case in terms of a traditional trespass-based analysis that hinged on, first, whether the public telephone booth Katz had used was a "constitutionally protected area" where he had a "right of privacy"; and second, on whether the FBI had "physically penetrated" the protected area ...
Unconstitutional vagueness is a concept that is used to strike down certain laws and judicial actions in United States federal courts. It is derived from the due process doctrine found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The doctrine prohibits criminal prosecution for laws where it is impossible to ...
The unconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids governments from “pressuring someone into forfeiting a constitutional right” by “coercively withholding benefits”. [8] Nollan and Dolan “involve a special application” of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation . [ 9 ]
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
The 26-page decision repealed Georgia’s law restricting access to abortion after six weeks, before many people become aware that they are pregnant.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.