during the war on terror. The legality of Bush’s M.O. immediately became the subject of debate upon its publication. For example‚ the president argues that he is fully authorized to enforce the use of military tribunals based on the historical precedents set in place by former presidents. He also argues that he is permitted to establish tribunals based on his declaration of “a national emergency on September 14‚ 2001.” The M.O. order states that “this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus President of the United States
According to the case‚ Congress cannot only directly regulate interstate commerce‚ but can also regulate activities that would "substantially affect" interstate commerce‚ a significant expansion of federal power. The court also cited a previous precedent from the case of Wickard v. Filburn‚ where the court decided that Congress can regulate any local activities‚ even non-commercial activities‚ if they substantially effect interstate commerce. The defendants on the other hand‚ argued that since Congress
Premium United States United States Congress Law
violate the First Amendment‚ freedom of speech. Mariam Adas‚ a Facebook campaign organizer for Jordanians against censorship‚ believes that there’s no way to do it right. Government will use blocking offensive/copyrighted/pornographic material as a precedent and then further block and filter other political‚ social and media websites (Ghazal). The aforementioned American bills‚ SOPA and Protect IP‚ where so carelessly written‚ that they would have the power to entirely shut down full websites‚ such as
Premium
"The Judicial Philosophy of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas" Clarence Thomas. In the annals of American history‚ this name has risen to the forefront of noted Supreme Court Justices and has become synonymous with the ideals and philosophies of uncompromising conservatives. Undeniably‚ the same name also congers thoughts of hypocrisy‚ desertion‚ and self-denial toward one of America ’s most divisive and enigmatic political figures. Since his nomination by President George H. Bush to the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States
Constitution was a failure because everyone ignored it. Not only did was this amendment a "failed experiment" () it was a detrimental experiment which lent itself to criminal activity and fostered division within political‚ cultural‚ and social groups. Precedents of division and selective obey of the law were set during the time period when prohibition was ratified. Good intentions to improve someone or something are not realistic when people do not see anything wrong with themselves. Initially‚ this
Premium Temperance movement Prohibition in the United States
individuals whereas Criminal law states what behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable as the case may be. By highlighting the main differences between the two categories‚ we can build up a clear picture of the way law works. Criminal law is made up of precedents which are guidelines that we have to follow. If we do not follow these guidelines known as laws we are at risk of punishment. If a person commits a crime‚ they are sent to court to receive a suitable punishment. When a crime is committed‚ it is
Premium Law Jury Judge
"[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL‚ but merely judgment” Hamilton explained when analyzing the Judiciary’s initial intent. Article 3 section 1 of the Constitution grants the Supreme court “The judicial Power of the United States.” this power can be given to inferior courts such as circuit and district courts as “Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Later‚ in article 3 section 2‚ the Judicial branch is granted power that “extend[s] to all Cases
Premium Law Separation of powers United States Constitution
Adarand v. Pena 1. What constitutional issue is raised in the Adarand litigation? The issue is an affirmative action case that make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court was being asked to decide whether categorizing citizens by race in order to determine the kind of treatment those individuals would receive was constitutional or not. This is not something new to be tried within the United States Supreme Court system. Attorneys for each side of the Adarand v. Pena case presented to the
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
protected an individual’s right in more traditional lawful parts like using a firearm for self defense. This court case also helped declare Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. (oyez.org) Later McDonald v Chicago also set a precedent in 2010 that extended to the states having more protection with gun rights. Both of these cases ruled in favor of protecting our gun rights. (Supreme Court) Gun rights are important if we want to be able to defend ourselves. For instance a Glendale
Premium
Jackson did as president as long as it was perceived as the will of the common man. 3. Jackson definition of a common man was limited and did not encompass various groups such as Indians‚ slaves and women. 4. In Worcester vs. Georgia set a precedent for Indian rights‚ Jackson disapproval. He said that chief justice John marshall made his decision now let him enforced it. Jackson claimed that the common man wanted the Indians to be removed and promptly sent the Cherokee down the “trail of tears”
Premium