Search for: "State v. Buchanan"
Results 61 - 80
of 453
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Legalistic Lawlessness and the Strategic Use of Repudiated Supreme Court Precedents, Part One of Two
31 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm
(This generation’s Korematsu, 2018’s Trump v. [read post]
Legalistic Lawlessness and the Strategic Use of Repudiated Supreme Court Precedents, Part One of Two
31 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm
(This generation’s Korematsu, 2018’s Trump v. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm
The people who have enjoyed the free ride provided by the realization requirement are, however, unsurprisingly annoyed by the possibility that they might have to pay taxes like the little people do, so they are starting to complain.Even so, an excellent explainer in Tuesday’s New York Times ends with this: The problem may be in the Constitution, which gives Congress broad powers to impose taxes, but says “direct taxes”—a term without clear definition—should be… [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm
The people who have enjoyed the free ride provided by the realization requirement are, however, unsurprisingly annoyed by the possibility that they might have to pay taxes like the little people do, so they are starting to complain.Even so, an excellent explainer in Tuesday’s New York Times ends with this: The problem may be in the Constitution, which gives Congress broad powers to impose taxes, but says “direct taxes”—a term without clear definition—should be… [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 6:21 am
If the federal court plaintiffs lack standing or a cause of action, or if the Court holds that state court judges are not proper party-defendants, or that for injunctive relief to be effective it must--but is not permitted to--run against private non-parties, then the Texas law will remain in effect pending resolution in state court and a possible eventual return to the US Supreme Court posing the question whether a six-week ban is permissible on the merits.For the U.S. and/or the… [read post]
17 Oct 2021, 2:17 pm
Kehm v. [read post]
We (Buchanan and Dorf) Aren't the Ones Saying the President Should "Invoke" the Fourteenth Amendment
6 Oct 2021, 4:30 am
United States (1935). [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 5:59 am
The majority opinion in Bush v. [read post]
28 Sep 2021, 8:35 am
Polk and Secretary of State James Buchanan, March 8, 1847. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/175516195 Native American Relations in Texas, From the Texas State Library and Archives Commission [read post]
26 Sep 2021, 4:55 pm
He is unpersuaded that the post-Shevill case law should be reversed but suggests that, in addition, a “focalisation” principle should apply, using the context of the statement in question to determine which Member State’s jurisdiction is the most appropriate. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 5:00 am
Is the United States still, as I recently put it, a “Dead Democracy Walking”? [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 1:07 pm
Prepared by Nabila Buhary, Law Library intern, under the supervision of Kelly Buchanan, Chief, Foreign, Comparative, and International Law Division II Content Source [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 9:01 pm
Ever since Roe v. [read post]
29 Aug 2021, 9:01 pm
And it is worth remembering that the John Lewis Act had seemed to be the bill most likely to receive at least some Republican support, because it mostly tries to restore the status quo ante that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority destroyed in Shelby County v. [read post]
6 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
A podcast on Buchanan v. [read post]
4 Aug 2021, 8:54 am
Councillor Buck Buchanan has been sanctioned following a social media post being critical of Mayoral Candidate Glen Carritt. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 9:55 am
Taylor v Buchanan – does it violate the First Amendment to force Michigan lawyers to pay money to join their Bar Association? [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 10:11 am
Buchanan begins: Attorneys in Michigan, like those in most other states, must join an integrated bar association in order to practice law. [read post]
10 Jul 2021, 12:05 am
Following up on my previous posts (links below): Neil Buchanan (Florida; Google Scholar), TrumpWorld v. [read post]
21 Apr 2021, 7:23 am
The coastal state does not “own” the claimed area. [read post]
