Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Charter forms Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 while section 35 is placed in Part II. This placement in the Constitution is considered significant. Professor Kent McNeil has written it could be seen as meaning section 35 allows for Aboriginal self-government, while the Charter is concerned with more individual rights. [12]
A general welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions and in some charters and statutes that allows that the governing body empowered by the document to enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, which is sometimes worded as the public welfare. In some countries, it has been used as a basis for legislation ...
RWAs are not official organs of government, and even slums and illegal housing localities in India can form RWAs to represent citizen interests. [3] RWAs are typically registered under co-operative society acts, which require groups to have a minimum of fifteen members from a given area, or under the Apartment Owners Act of the state as "association of apartment owners", or under the Societies ...
Section 35.1 commits the governments of Canada and the provinces "to the principle that, before any amendment is made [to subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 25 of the Charter or sections 35 or 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982]" that the Prime Minister will convene a conference of first ministers (i.e. provincial premiers ...
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the U.S. Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States. [1]
R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 was an important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
What links here; Related changes; Upload file; Special pages; Permanent link; Page information; Cite this page; Get shortened URL; Download QR code
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.