Search for: "STATE v. ACKERMAN"
Results 181 - 200
of 325
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2020, 8:28 am
If the E.R.A. rescissions are overlooked for purposes of counting to 38, then it becomes harder to deny that the four recent rescissions of Article V applications can be overlooked for purposes of counting to 34—putting us on the brink of our first-ever Article V convention.The puzzles don’t end there. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 1:13 pm
To this extent, I would state a disapproval of Ackerman v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 12:01 pm
Judge Keenan read the same Section 1441(b) that Judge Ackerman had read, but Judge Keenan didn't see any issue at all: "Plaintiff does not claim that she served Merck or any other in-state defendant before removal. . . . [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 7:12 am
Does anyone think that political skew would have no bearing in case another Bush v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 7:11 am
Does anyone think that political skew would have no bearing in case another Bush v. [read post]
20 Jun 2021, 6:30 am
Yes, the Article V process leading to those Amendments was in some respects procedurally irregular, as Bruce Ackerman has shown. [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 12:30 pm
Both the majority and the dissent in United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 3:24 pm
Constitution giving women the vote, for example, and the Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in the 1971 case of Reed v. [read post]
9 Sep 2012, 1:42 pm
Connecticut and Roe v. [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 8:00 am
The Illinois Supreme Court took the Turcois v Debruler case. [read post]
27 May 2011, 6:25 pm
Each also expressly rejects the idea that the amendment processes enumerated in Article V provide the sole means for "updating" the Constitution (and, indeed, each offers itself as authentically complementary to those Article V provisions such as they are). [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 12:31 pm
United States. [read post]
22 May 2011, 2:36 pm
Connecticut and Roe v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 6:47 am
`In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 4:03 pm
Bruce Ackerman has a famous, brilliant argument that in fact we need to acknowledge non-Article V change if we hope to understand either the Founding or Reconstruction. [read post]
14 Jan 2007, 9:03 pm
The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of all the states for constitutional amendments and for complicated reasons [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 7:59 am
See Ackerman v. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 8:00 am
Article V, because it requires two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, is, as Sandy Levinson has put it, functionally dead. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 4:29 pm
Ackerman’s views deserve at least a whole Lexicon entry, but the gist of his theory can be stated briefly. [read post]
11 Jan 2009, 6:42 am
SMS Spam: The Ninth Circuit will hear arguments in Satterfield v. [read post]
