Search for: "D. McCulloch"
Results 1 - 20
of 110
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2024, 5:56 pm
The ABA Business Law Section Backgrounder may be accessed HERE. 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMANORTHEASTERN DIVISIONNATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS )UNITED, d/b/a the NATIONAL )SMALL BUSINESS )ASSOCIATION, et al., ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Case No. 5:22-cv-1448-LCB)JANET YELLEN, in her official )capacity as Secretary of the )Treasury, et al., ))Defendants. )MEMORANDUM OPINIONThe late Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that federal judges should havea rubber stamp that says… [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 3:33 pm
The idea, of course, traces back to McCulloch v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm
If we assume, as Trump does here for the sake of this argument, that Trump is covered by Section 3 and that he did engage in an insurrection—which is what Colorado determined to be the case—then it is much more than reasonable for Colorado to assume, as it did with Abdul Hassan, that Trump cannot and will not assume the office of President, despite the (wholly) theoretical possibility that two-thirds of both Houses might vote to alleviate his… [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm
If we assume, as Trump does here for the sake of this argument, that Trump is covered by Section 3 and that he did engage in an insurrection—which is what Colorado determined to be the case—then it is much more than reasonable for Colorado to assume, as it did with Abdul Hassan, that Trump cannot and will not assume the office of President, despite the (wholly) theoretical possibility that two-thirds of both Houses might vote to alleviate his… [read post]
26 Dec 2023, 2:17 pm
The Constitution, as Chief Justice Marshall put it in McCulloch v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 9:23 am
The ordinance regulated picketing "by classifications formulated in terms of the subject of the picketing," the Supreme Court wrote—focusing on the discrimination present on the face of the enactment—and the "central problem" was that the ordinance "describe[d] permissible picketing in terms of its subject matter. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 2:25 am
McCulloch and others v Forth Valley Health Board (Scotland) [2023] UKSC 26. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 6:30 am
That, he’d say, was pure mystification. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 10:56 am
Here at McCulloch & Miller, the best part of our job is getting to know our clients and helping them meet their goals through estate planning. [read post]
4 May 2023, 10:25 am
That doctrine, which flows from McCulloch v. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 7:01 am
(2021) Donald Drakeman, The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory: Why We Need the Framers (2021) Jamal Greene, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights is Tearing America Apart (2021) David Schwartz, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm
The critics and cheerleaders of Dr. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am
McCulloch v. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:55 am
Id. at 2132 (quoting McCulloch v. [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 12:30 pm
Ninth Circuit (en banc): Have you read McCulloch v. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
Sanford Levinson This post was prepared for a roundtable onCan this Constitution be Saved? [read post]
2 Aug 2022, 6:30 am
This post was prepared for a roundtable on Wrestling with Religious Diversity, convened as part of LevinsonFest 2022—a year-long series gathering scholars from diverse disciplines and viewpoints to reflect on Sandy Levinson’s influential work in constitutional law. [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 10:40 pm
See D. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 6:30 am
Sanford Levinson This post was prepared for a roundtable on Law, Literature, and Other Performing Arts, convened as part of LevinsonFest 2022. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 2:52 am
(b) Since McCulloch v. [read post]
