New answers tagged

0

The key case on gun rights is District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Looking at both the Wikipedia article and the actual opinion There seems to be no mention of manuals, instructions or other documents. The Wikipedia article lists the "Issues addressed by the majority" as: the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is ...


3

One can only be certain when a case is decided by SCOTUS, and so far, no law has attempted to ban the publication of manuals for firearms. Jackson v. City of S.F., 746 F.3d 953 gives good reason to think that the court would find such a ban unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of thinking regarding ammunition regulations, where some municipalities ...


8

There are several reasons. But a major one is the difference between the civil-law and common-law legal systems. Most European legal systems are civil-law systems, and were significantly influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In this tradition, laws, including constitutions, tend to spell out rights, obligations, and procedures in relatively precise detail, and ...


-2

Most national constitutions are structural, ie, executive, legislative, judicial, dates and organizations of elections, taxing power, etc. These don't seem to require much interpretation, even in the US. One reason for supreme court cases is the division of powers between states and the Federal government. Sometimes a state and the Feds just disagree about ...


0

One point that hasn't been detailed in other answers is how this affects the balance between different institutions. In practice, a written constitution with a bill of rights often empowers the courts to nullify actions by other branches of the government. International human rights treaties can play the same role, even in places where court activism is ...


1

A constitution does not grant rights the citizens already have. It prevents the state from taking those rights away. For example, when a constitution says "Every citizen has the right to mow their lawn on Sunday morning", then that says that the legislature is prohibited from passing a law which infringes on that right and that the executive is ...


4

First, to be clear, this is almost never a state level limitation. To the extent that the link in the question implies otherwise, it is incorrect. Instead, local governments, typically a municipality or in an area that is not part of any municipality, a county, enacts land use regulations, the most common of which is usually called a "zoning code." ...


11

As you say, anything not specifically forbidden is presumed to be allowed. But the legislature can (relatively) easily pass laws to forbid things. Most constitutions make it significantly harder to amend themselves. So enumerating specific rights in the constitution ensures that they will not be taken away without a real struggle. For example, the 2nd ...


8

A constitutional law is harder to reverse than a simple law For example, France absolished the death penalty though a simple law, which could have been reversed through another simple law, with 50% of the lower house. It was added to the Constitution in 2007 (Article 66-1: "No one shall be sentenced to death"), and now requires a two-thirds ...


15

They don’t, or not necessarily The primary purpose of a constitution is to define the structure, operation and limits on government. It contains the laws that the government cannot change except by any procedure included in the constitution. It isn’t necessarily to spell out the rights of citizens. Some do, some don’t. The median age of constitutions is 19 ...


3

Unless something is explicitly forbidden in law it is allowed, so why do unitary states have constitutional rights? There is no level below them that could mean differently. Nothing would counteract a constitutional right if it was removed. Any state with a constitution of any form has rights that arise from it. Any kind of law establishes rights and ...


4

Constitutions are more than their Bill of Rights, and in fact, the U.S. Constitution was first written without the Bill of Rights (They were added in through the amendment process shortly after the document was ratified). Constitutions are the supreme law of a nation and will outline the nation's government structure (Who is the Commander in Chief of the ...


1

Citizens United The argument made and accepted by the court in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) was specifically that a total bar on corporate electioneering communications, and a bar of money spent to produce or distribute such communications was unconstitutional. Money so spent was deemed a way of creating and ...


1

Section 10 of the US-Constitution effectively bans any member state of the union to have any independent international politics branch: Treaties, alliances, and confederations are contracts between multiple countries. letters of marque are legalizing piracy on enemies of a country Bills of Credit and the regulation on non-fine-metal coinage are regulations ...


6

Yes, explicitly. It even laid out the procedure and method (i.e. on equal footing) of these new states. Specifically, Article IV, Section 3, the "Admissions Clause": New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the ...


-1

This is also because of the fact that the U.S. and U.K. have different structures about who is the Head of Government. In the U.K. the head of the executive branch of government (AKA, the people who enforce the laws that were passed by the legislature, AKA the Head of Government.) is also the leader of the lower house (where it exists) legislative body. ...


5

While I am not a lawyer, this is fairly well settled in US constitutional theory. The framers thought of impeachment is something very much like a legal process, which is shown, among other things by the procedure in the Senate being referred to in the Constitution as a "trial" and a vote to remove being described as a "conviction". The ...


-3

It doesn't matter in this situation whether the police officer was identified or on duty or even if they weren't in fact a police officer. Any citizen who observes another citizen doing something illegal has the power to arrest or testify against them otherwise they risk becoming an accomplice or co-conspirer. So while there are certain procedures that ...


4

Was the Constitution of the United States meant to be perpetual? Yes, the Constitution of the United States was meant to be perpetual, subject to the amendment procedure contained in the Constitution itself. There are two possibilities, either it was perpetual, or it was intended to cease to be effective at some point in time that is defined somewhere. No ...


0

As others have pointed out, there is no clear way to definitively answer this question because of the number of issues involved and no clear precedent. For anyone curious, it may, however, be helpful to add information about which issues may or may not contribute to answering this question if it ever reaches the courts. I will try to answer this without ...


1

While I think the definition is comparing § 1983 with “Bivens actions.” Are there specific laws regarding Bivens? It's not clear to me why there is such a distinction. I have followed the obvious links. Can anyone supply further reading regarding the range of torts that might fall under Bivens? 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for a willful violation of a ...


1

Yes. For several years I (a resident of Maryland) held and exercised a PoA granted to me by my father, a resident of NY state. It was accepted sand acted on by several financial institutions, an accountant, and several government agencies. The Maryland statutory form of a Power of attorney is given in code Section 17-202. Nothing in that form requires or ...


2

Can my brother in FL give me his POA when I reside in NC, not FL Yes. This is done routinely. In this situation, the POA instrument would usually have an express choice of law clause that states that Florida law applies (but such a clause is not necessary for the POA to be valid and there are few differences in the agency law of powers of attorney between ...


1

The translation issues are addressed well enough in the OP and the comments. The Latin phrases delegatus non potest delegare and delegata potestas non potest delegari do not have consistently distinct meanings in modern legal usage. Somebody, somewhere may have made a distinction in a case, but this isn't meaningfully uniform across U.S. jurisprudence which ...


3

I am not a lawyer. Impartial observations follow. It seems that consent is not strictly required to be "informed" consent. An LEO in plain clothes has no duty of disclosure in these circumstances. The "plain sight" rule stands even if plain sight would not have been possible from without. There is no privileged confidentiality here. The ...


4

Before getting into the technical answer to this question it is worth noting that when matters of a constitutional nature are involved then in practice it is not just a matter of a technical "legal" answer. Students and academics like to pose hypothetical questions such as "What would happen if the Queen refused assent to a Bill?" or &...


35

If a plain-clothes officer entered your house without your permission or a warrant, then it would indeed run afoul of the 4th Amendment (and the same is true for a uniformed officer.) But essentially no search is considered 'unreasonable' if you consent to it without coercion/duress. Similarly, courts have consistently held that anything seen by an officer &...


44

Wooden made two arguments to suppress the evidence, first that he had not consented to the officer entering his house (the officer and the court disagreed) and the second that even if the officer's entry had been legitimate, the evidence wasn't legitimate because of the Fourth Amendment: Much of Wooden’s challenge turns on the fact that Mason was neither in ...


2

The right to assembly may not be abridged by congress, and therefore states may not craft anti-assembly legislation. Florida did not, instead, Section 15. Section 870.01 of HB1 says (2) A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent ...


5

The restrictions of the First Amendment have been made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. For the right to assemble, this was recognized in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937). But note that the right only protects peaceable assembly. When it is alleged that improper violence or other properly unlawful action has occurred, the state ...


11

There is no "different legal procedure" for challenging the constitutionality of a law. The only way to do so is through the process that this question contemplates: to argue that the law is unconstitutional in a civil or criminal trial. Whether the law bears directly on the matter at trial or only on ancillary matters such as discovery, the ...


2

It's not clear to me why there is such a distinction. Simple answer: § 1983 is restricted to acts by agents of US States. Bivens was added by SCOTUS as a sort of parallel remedy for the roughly analogous deeds of US federal agents. If you need some kind of external validation for this basic claim: https://uslawessentials.com/2014111what-are-the-differences-...


1

Partial answer Wikipedia's article on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents says: The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, laid down a rule that it will infer a private right of action for monetary damages where no other federal remedy is provided for the vindication of a constitutional right, based on the principle that for every wrong, there is a ...


2

The government cannot mandate or require that Facebook delete certain posts unless there is a law to that effect, and any such law would be subject to "strict scrutiny" and might well be found unconstitutional. The government may not threaten Facebook with regulatory actions or other negative use of government powers in an effort to induce FB to ...


3

US Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, can only rule on an issue when it comes up as part of a "case or controversy". This is from Article III, Section 2, Clause 1. This clause is why US Federal courts do not give advisory opinions, as some state courts and some courts in other countries do. They also do not reach out to decide issues not ...


6

Why has this never been interpreted by SCOTUS? It has never been interpreted by any court, because the interpretation you're advocating is nonsensical, and nobody has ever tried to advance it in any court. Therefore, no court has had an opportunity to rule on it. Congress, however, has (at least implicitly) interpreted this clause to mean that all natural-...


4

Why has this never been interpreted by SCOTUS? The Supreme Court deals with actual cases (Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia). If no case has been brought to the court, then there is no interpretation from the court. Nobody should have the power to veto what the people want. If Gowron (as president) and the Great Pumpkin (as vice ...


4

Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "treason against the government". Any legal charge of treason is treason against the country. Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US constitution reads: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No ...


Top 50 recent answers are included