Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In analytic philosophy, [1] a fundamental distinction is made between the use of a term and the mere mention of it. [2] [3] Many philosophical works have been "vitiated by a failure to distinguish use and mention". [2] The distinction can sometimes be pedantic, especially in simple cases where it is obvious. [2] [4]
There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with (or in) power. [4]Anglican biblical scholar Edward Plumptre argues that this verse should be read with the final section of Mark 8 and suggests that the present arrangement may have been made with a view of connecting it with the Transfiguration as the fulfilment of the promise in this ...
The resolution, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women", reads, in part: [1] Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States ...
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The term explanation is sometimes used in the context of justification, e.g., the explanation as to why a belief is true. Justification may be understood as the explanation as to why a belief is a true one or an account of how one knows what one knows. It is important to be aware when an explanation is not a justification.
Section 11(b) provides that 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right... (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; Section 11(b) can be taken to provide a right to a speedy trial. [3] The criteria by which the court will consider whether the rights of an accused under this provision have been infringed were set out in R. v. Askov (1990).
The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms contains a section that has also been compared to section 1. Namely, section 9.1 states that when one invokes rights, it should be in a manner with respecting "democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec" and that law may limit rights.