Search for: "State v. Levell" Results 601 - 620 of 29,658
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2024, 7:24 am by Guest Author
” As stated by Justice Rehnquist in his concurring opinion in Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 3:03 am by Will Baude
  Though the article is set to appear in print sometime this month, it might not beat the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 1:45 pm
In this response Essay, I argue: first, that Lepore's marginalization of Article V's convention mechanism is in tension with her own historical and normative account; second, that while Lepore's wariness of conventions is entirely understandable given the state of our politics—and entirely commonplace among progressives—it carries significant risks of its own; and third, that constitutional conventions are not as unfamiliar as they might seem and that our… [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 1:44 pm by Christine Corcos
In this response Essay, I argue: first, that Lepore's marginalization of Article V's convention mechanism is in tension with her own historical and normative account; second, that while Lepore's wariness of conventions is entirely understandable given the state of our politics—and entirely commonplace among progressives—it carries significant risks of its own; and third, that constitutional conventions are not as unfamiliar as they might seem and that our… [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 11:37 am by Josh Blackman
Stay tuned.The post Attending Oral Argument in <i>Trump v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm by Meredith R. Miller and Laura Dooley
  The beneficial ownership information, however, will not be made available in a public database.On the state level, there have been similar attempts to address transparency in ownership. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 6:37 pm by Stephen Bilkis
  SORA outlines procedures for the registration of out-of-state offenders, including the determination of their risk level classification. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am by Will Baude
For example, Lash, in discussing the question of ratifiers' views on "whether Section Three applied to future insurrections," states (at 45) that "[v]ery few ratifiers specifically addressed" the question, but those who did "came to different conclusions" on this point. [read post]