Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The specific term "Necessary and Proper Clause" was coined in 1926 by Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court decision in Lambert v. Yellowley , 272 U.S. 581 (1926), which upheld a law restricting medicinal use of alcohol as a necessary and proper exercise of power under the 18th Amendment, which ...
United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. [1]
On June 19, 2018, oral arguments commenced with the following arguments made: whether or not the petition is properly the subject of the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, whether or not the right to marry and the right to choose whom to marry are cognates of the right to life and liberty, whether or not the limitation of ...
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 25 October 2024. 1819 United States Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 21 – March 3, 1819 Decided March 6, 1819 Full case name James McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, John James [a] Citations 17 U.S. 316 (more) 4 Wheat. 316; 4 L. Ed. 579; 1819 ...
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 ...
Hamilton notes that the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause "have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution." This stirs up much of the issues amongst the people due to the uncertainty of the consequences of granting the government "too much power".
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (1993), alternatively titled Minors Oposa v.Factoran or Minors Oposa, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizing the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility on the environment in the Philippine legal system.
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. [1] The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v.