Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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.
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 need for a comprehensive guide to the interpretation of the Constitution was apparent to Congress from early in the 20th century. In 1911, the Senate Manual contained the United States Constitution and Amendments with citations to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning constitutional law. [4]
Some of the more important powers reserved to the states by the Constitution are: the power, by "application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states," to require Congress to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to or revising the terms of the Constitution (see Article V). [57]
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 ...
The history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause follows a broad arc, beginning with approximately 100 years of little attention, then taking on a relatively narrow view of the governmental restrictions required under the clause, growing into a much broader view in the 1960s, and later again receding.
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]