Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The right to property, or the right to own property (cf. ownership), is often [how often?] classified as a human right for natural persons regarding their possessions.A general recognition of a right to private property is found [citation needed] more rarely and is typically heavily constrained insofar as property is owned by legal persons (i.e. corporations) and where it is used for ...
The bank contended successfully that this constituted an arbitrary deprivation of its property in violation of the property rights protected by section 25(1) of the Constitution of South Africa. In evaluating this argument, Ackermann set out a test for determining whether deprivation of property has taken place, [ 2 ] though it is debatable to ...
The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution provides that certain substantive rights such as life, liberty, and property, cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. The categories of substance and procedure are distinct. Were the rule otherwise, the Clause would be reduced to a mere tautology ...
The provisions relating to the right to property were changed a number of times. The 44th amendment of 1978 deleted the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights. [14] A new article, Article 300-A, was added to the constitution to provide, "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.
Social Security, he argued, is a compulsory substitute for private property, is heavily relied on, and is important to beneficiaries. The beneficiary's right to Social Security, he argued, should not be subject to public policy considerations (especially not something resembling a loyalty oath, as was the case in Flemming).
Harksen v Lane NO and Others is an important decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, delivered on 7 October 1997.The court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Insolvency Act, 1936, finding that it was consistent with the right to property and right to equality for the property of a solvent spouse to be attached to the insolvent estate of his or her partner.
Dignity taking is the destruction or confiscation of property rights from owners or occupiers, where the intentional or unintentional outcome is dehumanization or infantilization. [1] There are two requirements: (1) involuntary property destruction or confiscation and (2) dehumanization or infantilization. [2]