Discover the world's scientific knowledge
With 135+ million publication pages, 20+ million researchers and 1+ million questions, this is where everyone can access science
You can use AND, OR, NOT, "" and () to specify your search.
I was wondering if anyone had any expertise on the fourth amendment pertaining to electronic surveillance.
Would prospective warrantless StingRay searches that track a criminal to their own private residence be constitutional. Under the public movement doctrine, public roads are arguably covered, however if we follow Karo, it states that once the tracking invades the residence of an individual it violates the fourth amendment.
The recent decision of the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the European Central Bank’s OMT program is a reversal of its earlier decision of January 2014.
What are the causes of this dowbacking of the German constitutional court ?
The German court now accepts the authority and the decision by the European Court of Justice on the ECB’s OMT program of 2015. Why?
Scopus is one of the largest, most reputable abstract and citation databases for academic literature. ... Scopus covers various formats (books, journals, conference papers, etc.) in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities.
On November 6, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) heard oral arguments in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway. The Court will announce its decision in June; however it is already apparent that the decision will not be a unanimous one. An indication of how Justices are leaning can generally be gleaned from the questions posed or statements made by the Justices during oral argument. During the oral arguments, Justice Kagan made the following statement: “What troubles me about this case is that here a citizen is going to a local community board and is immediately being asked, being forced to identify whether she believes in the things that most of the people in the room believe in, and it strikes me that this might be inconsistent with this understanding that when we relate to our government, we all do so as Americans, and not as Jews and not as Christians and not as nonbelievers.”
Justice Scalia made the following statement: “There is a serious religious interest on the other side of this thing that people who have religious beliefs ought to be able to invoke the deity when they are acting as citizens and it seems to me that when they do that, so long as all groups are allowed to be in, it seems to me an imposition upon them to stifle the manner in which they invoke their deity.”
Gwen says: Justice Scalia’s comment ignores the Constitutional right of American citizens to have no religion or, expressed another way, “to be free FROM religion.” Alexis deTocqueville (DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA) and James Madison (THE FEDERALIST PAPERS) would say that Justice Kagan’s comment captures the essence of “the tyranny of the majority.” Moreover, it is disingenuous of Justice Scalia to baldly state that elected members of public bodies are “acting as citizens” when he in fact knows that elected officers are acting as REPRESENTATIVES of the citizens in their respective communities who elected them to office. Therefore these representatives must needs represent ALL of the citizens – those who hold religious beliefs and those who do not.
Admittedly, I am biased in favor of siding with Justice Kagan since she is a former Dean of my law school; nevertheless, the fact that the two Co-Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are an atheist (Linda Stephens) and a Jew (Susan Galloway) provides concrete evidence that Justice Scalia’s point about everyone having the right to “invoke their deity” is spurious. BUT, WHAT DO YOU ON RG THINK?
Access a transcript of the November 6th oral arguments before SCOTUS in Town of Greece v. Galloway here:
India has Constitutional protection for reservation of jobs in government and public sector for such communities. This includes universities, research institute, civil services, police, health care and more other such operations. As of date, 50 percent of public jobs are reserved and only the rest are in the open categories.
In India there are more than 4000 castes divided into four varnas. Some of these belonging to the lowest verna have been treated as untouchables by the people from the higher vernas, and continue to be so despite there being a strong law working for 65 years against it. Their stigma will take many more generations so as to be washed away. Then, there are other communities for which jobs have been reserved.
What are your views on such kind of provisions?
During the defendant's psychiatric examination can appear circumstances that violate constitutional rights, as the prohibition to declare against himself; wouldn't be necessary his defender's presence?
I have a case study that absolutely flouted basic principle of democracy
In some of the most outstanding cases across the world, Supreme Courts or the Apex Court of the country have used the words like 'conduct shocking to the judicial conscience.' Irrespective of the verdict, such a strong term used by the judge(s), indicates that he or they may have relied upon their individual value systems to temper the verdict, couching it otherwise in suitable judicial terminology. Larger justice may have been achieved but can we really discount individual opinion? So, the questions are:
1. What is this 'judicial conscience'?
2. Can we define it?
3. Is it an entity beyond the domain of law - a law by itself?
4. Is it subject to some law - perhaps the law relating to 'judicial discretion', if there is such a law?
The Ultra Vires Threat from National Constitutional Courts: Is It Becoming a Reality?
The German Bundesverfassungsgericht has in several of its judgments threatened that it can decide that acts of the EU institutions are ultra vires. While its statements in this regard have been followed by several other constitutional courts, until recently no court had actually found an EU act ultra vires. This has now changed following the judgment of the Czech constitutional court in Landtova, holding that a ruling of the Court of Justice was ultra vires. Was this an aberration or will we see more challenges to EU law and the Court of Justice courtesy of national constitutional courts
On 1 July 2012, the preliminary reference procedure was introduced at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. When lower civil courts face controversial points of law, they may refer a question of interpretation to the Supreme Court and request a preliminary ruling. This way, the Supreme Court should be able to provide legal practice with a faster and more specific response to pressing legal questions than through the ‘ordinary’ procedure.
This preliminary reference procedure is not a modern invention. It was already known in Rome, existed in a specific form in France (référé législatif, where a question of interpretation was referred to the legislator), was used at the Italian Corte Costitutionale and has been a powerful tool for the development of EU law by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (see the attached blog and article). Furthermore, Protocol 16 to the ECHR will allow highest courts of states that have ratified this Protocol to refer a question of principle to the European Court of Human Rights for an advisory opinion.
I wanted to use ResearchGate for a small comparative exercise. Perhaps you would like to answer the following questions. May lower courts in your country refer a question of interpretation to the highest court(s) in your country? Did such an instrument once exist, or is the introduction of such an instrument currently under consideration in your country?
I am also interested in literature on this subject and in other relevant international examples.
Your help is greatly appreciated,
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted