New answers tagged

2

McCulloch v Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) does not give federal officials unlimited power. But it does mean that when when such officials are carrying out properly authorized constitutional functions, state law cannot be used to prevent or regulate them, unless Congress has so provided. Some examples: A state cannot require a postal employee to ...


2

The phrase comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). It is correct that "incitement to imminent lawless action" can be an exception to the protections of the First Amendment when the incitement is likely to be successful. But I think that both the question and the answer by bdb484 are incorrect in assuming that "lawless action"...


2

The exception to First Amendment protection for free speech you're thinking of is for "incitement," rather than for "imminent lawless action," which is merely a component of the exception. Under that exception, speech advocating the violation of the law is unprotected if it is (1) intended to cause imminent lawless action; and (2) likely ...


5

No, votes would not have to be postponed. The Constitution has nothing specific to say about this. (It's not that long - you can and should read it through and check for yourself, and searching is even easier.) The Constitution's only reference to the Speaker of the House is Article I Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker ...


Top 50 recent answers are included