Search for: "Mark I. Congress"
Results 3401 - 3420
of 7,023
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2015, 11:56 am
" (There are a couple of bars that are almost literally across the street, but it turns out she was talking about Congress.) [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 12:29 pm
Thus, it is clear that Congress deliberately modified the definition of conviction to include deferred adjudications. 22 I & N Dec. at 227 (Emphasis supplied.) [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 11:05 am
, with an exclamation mark which Kagan omits. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 5:01 am
” It wouldn’t take much research to figure out that this claim is way off the mark. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 3:13 am
President Washington and Congress agreed,” Brookhiser said. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 12:13 pm
Granting a trademark in the first place limits speech, which is why Congress and the courts have cabined the grant and enforcement of trademark rights within boundaries imposed by the First Amendment. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 9:50 am
However, I was unaware of some of the dark deeds in 17th century Iceland, until I recently learned about the symbolic righting of an old wrong. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 5:46 am
This year’s conference will focus on the role Congress should play in controlling or disciplining the regulatory state. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 3:42 am
At Slate, Judith Schaeffer marks the forty-eighth anniversary of the Court’s decision in Loving v. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 2:20 pm
I. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
Bottom line: Nixon and Kissinger knew the peace was unlikely to last, but they also knew for domestic political purposes they had to end the war or face a certain cut-off of funding from Congress. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 6:18 am
The other Mark W. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 9:51 am
That case is littered with dicta supporting broad presidential power, and it has long been viewed as the high-water mark of judicial support for presidential control over foreign affairs. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 7:52 am
A much harder question (and one to which I did not pay much attention back in the day) is whether Congress has any power in the first place to adopt Section 214(d). [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 9:50 am
” “I respectfully dissent,” he concludes. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 4:25 am
However, I am not involved in the case in any way.] [read post]
6 Jun 2015, 10:25 am
Is Congress not talking to the USPTO? [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 10:54 am
We need your help, and I hope you will join us. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 5:53 am
That is not what Congress intended nearly 70 years ago and it is not what Congress intends today. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 5:56 am
As the SG pointed out, “[i]n contrast to drugs, cosmetics may be marketed without FDA approval. [read post]
