Search for: "(f/n/u) Smith"
Results 1 - 20
of 143
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst., 593 U. [read post]
31 Mar 2024, 9:44 am
” In re Marriage of Hamm-Smith, 261 Ill. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 2:04 pm
& Pol'y Rev. 53, 66 & n.49, 98 & n.207 (1999); see also Timothy Farrar, Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America 436 (Boston, Little, Brown, & Co. 3d ed. rev. 1872) ("The general power of impeachment and trial may extend to others besides civil officers, as military or naval officers, or even persons not in office, and to other offences than those expressly requiring a judgment of removal from office . . . . [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
And strangely, Part II-A of Professor Tillman’s brief devotes six pages to arguing (mistakenly) that “[i]n the Constitution of 1788, the President did not hold an ‘Office … under the United States,'” without arguing that the same is true in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment—let alone that the alleged limited meaning of that phrase in 1788 is a reason for reversing the Colorado Supreme Court.) [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
”[5] Finally, the Commission’s mandatory language states that “[i]f Defendant breaches this agreement, the Commission may petition the Court to vacate the Final Judgment and restore this action to its active docket. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm
State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2023, 2:52 pm
School Dist., 112 F. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm
During my recent visit to Columbia Law School, Professor John Coffee shared with me a draft of a short article that later appeared in the New York Law Journal.[1] Coffee’s article assessed the prospects in the U.S. [read post]
How Jack Smith May Charge Trump PAC with Fraudulent Fundraising Within the Bounds of First Amendment
24 Aug 2023, 5:55 am
For Special Counsel Jack Smith, the charge could be a federal wire fraud. 18 U. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 8:20 am
[I]f Ms. [read post]
22 Jun 2023, 8:00 am
Looking to the current case, the court concluded that “[n]o substantial evidence tended to alert the court or counsel nor cast doubt on Defendant’s competency prior to his voluntary actions,” and “[u]nlike in Sides, the trial court was not presented with any evidence of a history of Defendant’s mental illness. [read post]
24 May 2023, 6:37 am
Part of Just Security’s work on accountability and election law. [read post]
22 May 2023, 9:22 am
S., at 196; see also Smith v. [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 6:41 am
Over a year earlier, in a 2019 brief in a civil suit, the Justice Department also asserted that the Speech or Debate Clause covered the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate (p. 10 n.11, pp. 11-12). [read post]
18 Feb 2023, 9:45 am
Paul, 505 U. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am
Smith v. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 7:45 am
[Jack Goldsmith and I will have an article out about the Dormant Commerce Clause, geolocation, and state regulations of Internet transactions in the Texas Law Review early next year, and I'm serializing it here. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am
[Jack Goldsmith and I will have this article out in the Texas Law Review early next year, and I'm serializing it here. [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 5:06 am
In National Assn of Broadcasters v. [read post]
