Search for: "Adams v. American President Lines"
Results 1 - 20
of 261
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2010, 10:55 am
Adam Serwer of the American Prospect has a typically thoughtful post on the government’s Al Aulaqi brief, notable for his taking the government’s arguments seriously even in dismissing them. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 9:30 am
Curt Nichols and Adam Myers make the novel argument for a multiple-presidency reconstruction here. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 12:00 pm
See, e.g., Zivotofsky v. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 6:30 am
For the Symposium on Adam Cox and Cristina Rodriguez, The President and Immigration Law (Oxford University Press, 2020).Aziz Huq“The President and Immigration Law” is a first-rate contribution not just to legal scholarship but also the interdisciplinary study of American state development. [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 6:19 am
As I argued in this article, since that time, the president’s power to threaten war has grown dramatically and become central to American foreign policy. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 1:10 am
Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. of New York meeting with President Lyndon B. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 12:00 pm
The unique American provides no direct election of President and Vice-President. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 7:48 am
The Supreme Court in its famous 1969 Brandenburg v. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 4:22 pm
It appears that when President Trump seemed poised to stop the review, Secretary of the Navy Richard V. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 8:00 am
For example, Blackman argues that the president’s exclusive recognition power as described by the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
Adam T. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
Adam T. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
Adam T. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 7:50 am
The bottom line is simple. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 10:26 am
Ashcroft in 2003 and in Islamic American Relief Agency v. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 2:15 pm
Adam B. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 6:47 am
Malkawi, Associate Professor of Law, American University of Sharjah." [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]
20 Jul 2017, 11:00 am
And so a specter is haunting the American presidency—the [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 12:00 am
And as always, please drop a line or a comment if I've missed one. [read post]
