Search for: "People v. McGinnis"
Results 41 - 60
of 63
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2019, 1:01 pm
” Several days after Rivera was decided, the same district court judge, Judge Chang, issued his opinion in McGinnis v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 3:47 am
” At Law & Liberty (via How Appealing), John McGinnis maintains that “Gorsuch’s decision defends an acontextual literalism that has the potential to sever more generally the connection between the legal interpretation of a text and the people who made and understood it. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 12:13 pm
McGinnis is alleging. [read post]
26 Mar 2023, 1:47 pm
In Tobe v. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 12:01 pm
” Or, after Lee v. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 5:55 am
What is fixed cannot be altered except through Article V amendment; and3. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 1:01 pm
Corey Brettschneider & Nelson TebbeLast week, the Court heard arguments in Walker v. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 2:29 pm
(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]
21 Aug 2022, 9:10 am
US), to apply extraterritorially (Morrison v. [read post]
14 Jan 2007, 9:03 pm
First, Bruce Ackerman's work on constitutional history suggested the availability of "left originalism" that maintained the commitment to the constitutional will of "We the People" but argued that the constitution included a New Deal constitutional moment that legitimated the legacy of the Warren Court--We the People: Foundations, published in 1991. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 8:40 am
Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Oxford, 2004) Danie [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]
22 May 2014, 7:44 am
Our disagreement – not a small one -- is whether We the People only did great things during the Golden Age before the New Deal. [read post]
15 May 2009, 7:49 am
McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision holding that a Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights had not been violated because the holiday feast that he was denied was not a mandatory one in Islam. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 8:55 pm
For example, the intention behind the equal protection clause might be formulated at a relatively high level of generality--leading to the conclusion that segregation is unconstitutional--or at a very particular level--in which case the fact that the Reconstruction Congress segregated the District of Columbia schools might be thought to support the "separate but equal" principle of Plessy v. [read post]
7 May 2023, 6:00 am
For example, the intention behind the equal protection clause might be formulated at a relatively high level of generality--leading to the conclusion that segregation is unconstitutional--or at a very particular level--in which case the fact that the Reconstruction Congress segregated the District of Columbia schools might be thought to support the "separate but equal" principle of Plessy v. [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 12:30 pm
For example, the intention behind the equal protection clause might be formulated at a relatively high level of generality--leading to the conclusion that segregation is unconstitutional--or at a very particular level--in which case the fact that the Reconstruction Congress segregated the District of Columbia schools might be thought to support the "separate but equal" principle of Plessy v. [read post]
19 Jul 2009, 2:07 pm
For example, the intention behind the equal protection clause might be formulated at a relatively high level of generality--leading to the conclusion that segregation is unconstitutional--or at a very particular level--in which case the fact that the Reconstruction Congress segregated the District of Columbia schools might be thought to support the "separate but equal" principle of Plessy v. [read post]
16 Mar 2008, 10:41 am
For example, the intention behind the equal protection clause might be formulated at a relatively high level of generality--leading to the conclusion that segregation is unconstitutional--or at a very particular level--in which case the fact that the Reconstruction Congress segregated the District of Columbia schools might be thought to support the "separate but equal" principle of Plessy v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 11:22 am
Supreme Court held in Twombly v. [read post]
