Search for: "McCulloch et al"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2024, 5:56 pm
The ABA Business Law Section Backgrounder may be accessed HERE. 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMANORTHEASTERN DIVISIONNATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS )UNITED, d/b/a the NATIONAL )SMALL BUSINESS )ASSOCIATION, et al., ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Case No. 5:22-cv-1448-LCB)JANET YELLEN, in her official )capacity as Secretary of the )Treasury, et al., ))Defendants. )MEMORANDUM OPINIONThe late Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that federal judges should… [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm
The critics and cheerleaders of Dr. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am
McCulloch v. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:55 am
Id. at 2132 (quoting McCulloch v. [read post]
2 Aug 2022, 6:30 am
This post was prepared for a roundtable on Wrestling with Religious Diversity, convened as part of LevinsonFest 2022—a year-long series gathering scholars from diverse disciplines and viewpoints to reflect on Sandy Levinson’s influential work in constitutional law. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 1:16 pm
OHIO, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A247 v. [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 11:48 am
This, after al, is what Marshall was getting at in McCulloch when he referred to the U.S. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 7:30 am
DoerflerEarly in Fidelity & Constraint, Larry Lessig recounts McCulloch v. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 11:53 am
It is, as Chief Justice John Marshall observed of the commerce power in McCulloch v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 2:30 am
Falbe et al. (2016) used a repeated cross-sectional design comparing the pre- and post-changes in sweetened and unsweetened consumptions for different individuals. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 10:28 am
Asher Flynn, Jacqueline Hodgson, Jude McCulloch and Bronwyn Naylor (Monash University, University of Warwick - School of Law, Monash University and RMIT University - Graduate School of Business and Law) have posted Legal Aid and Access to Legal Representation: Redefining... [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm
Selikoff’s legitimate achievements should not be diminished, and historians McCulloch and Tweedale are correct to bemoan the ad hominem attacks on Selikoff, based upon ethnicity and personal characteristics. [read post]
4 Jan 2014, 9:47 am
Jonathan Samet, et al., Institute of Medicine, Asbestos: Selected Health Effects (2006). [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 6:08 am
Furthermore, their suggestion that Gauley Bridge fits into their Marxist paradigm of corporate corruption of science (citing similar works by Michaels, Castleman, Rosner, et al.) ignores the robust debate from all sectors of society, including the scientific community, organized labor, political actors, industry, government, and academia. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 6:31 am
If the end (universal health care) is proper but Medicare-for-all is not politically feasible, must the Court defer to Congress choosing a different, politically feasible means to that proper end, so long as it does not run afoul of an individual liberty (which Barnett, Rivkin, et al. continually disclaimed). [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 1:48 pm
At VC, our outlier was Orin Kerr, who remains unconvinced by the arguments developed by Randy et al. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 11:00 pm
Difficult Legal Issues in the Healthcare Case Before the Supreme Court By R Tamara de Silva March 27, 2012 Arguments began yesterday before the United States Supreme Court on the future of President Obama's healthcare bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA" or "Obamacare"). [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 9:03 pm
On Tuesday, March 27, the Supreme Court will meet for the second day of hearings on constitutional issues surrounding the new federal health care law. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am
In December 1833, the American Monthly Review commented on a newly published book by Joseph Story. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 7:43 pm
I’ve had the chance to debate the constitutionality of the individual mandate a couple of times over the last year, and on each occasion my opponent (arguing against the ACA) has relied both on Randy Barnett’s (et. al.) activity/inactivity distinction, and on Timothy Sandefur’s (et. al.) claim that the mandate does not “regulate” commerce. [read post]
