Search for: "People v. Jefferson"
Results 1 - 20
of 825
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2024, 7:30 am
In McCulloch v. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 8:26 am
President Thomas Jefferson introduced the wall of separation metaphor in a 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. [read post]
28 May 2024, 5:59 am
In Trump v. [read post]
19 May 2024, 12:40 pm
Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:01 am
Elrod v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
The right mounted court challenges with mixed results for decades, until this June when the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:01 am
From Troutt v. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 8:59 am
King v. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 4:00 am
MARBURY V. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 3:39 pm
Origin and Meaning of the Anti-Power-Concentration Principle In Seila Law v. [read post]
14 Mar 2024, 11:16 am
Blum v. [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 12:24 pm
[Professor Shugerman's argument that the 1793 Hamilton Document, that is, a list of "every person holding any civil office or employment under the United States, (except the judges)," was intended to ensure compliance with the Constitution's Sinecure Clause lacks support.] [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm
v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm
During last week’s Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 9:51 am
” The timeframe for decision in Trump v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 1:28 pm
The relevant precedent would be Arizona v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
[This is the second installment in a series about the oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 1:47 pm
He also admitted that people at the time feared that a former Confederate such as Jefferson Davis could potentially become president. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
This claim is, of course, deeply counterintuitive, and it would be very awkward, to say the least, for the Supreme Court to explain to the American people that Section 3 doesn’t apply to someone who’s been President because although that person held an “office,” it wasn’t an office “of the United States. [read post]