Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to ...
Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear ...
In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily ...
The right to petition includes under its umbrella the legal right to sue the government. [15] Civil litigation between two private individuals or entities is considered to be a right to a peititon, since they are asking the government's court system to remedy their problems. [15]
A scene of rabbis engaging in debate in Carl Schleicher's painting A controversy from the Talmud, 19th century. Controversy (UK: / k ə n ˈ t r ɒ v ə r s i /, US: / ˈ k ɒ n t r ə v ɜː r s i /) [1] [2] is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.
The dispute must involve an actual controversy between the parties before the court; [3] that is, the parties must be seeking a different legal outcome. This rule prevents federal courts from hearing a collusive suit or friendly suit .
Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.
[1] For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision. The goal is to prevent premature adjudication; if a dispute is insufficiently developed, any potential injury or stake is too speculative to warrant judicial action.