New answers tagged

1

...likely no indication that items were subject to “interstate” commerce. In addition to cpast's answer I'll just address this bit. The "interstate commerce" is in reference to the Commerce Clause in the US constitution. This has been interpreted very broadly, so pretty much any activity which has an economic effect will be held to have a knock-on ...


6

Barela was convicted of robbery affecting interstate commerce and faces a sentence of up to 20 years and $250,000 in fines. I assume your issue is that you think this is too high (although I don't see what it has to do with the 14th or 6th Amendments). Fortunately, it's also almost completely unrelated to the actual sentence. The number that was quoted is ...


12

So it's not that SCOTUS is declining to review the matter on Constitutional Grounds but that it's declining to rule because 1.) It's a military matter 2.) It's under review by congress. SCOTUS is basically saying that, of the three branches, they are the least equipped to deal with military policy and when a better equipped branch is reviewing the matter. ...


0

There has never been a definitive legal interpretation of this clause. The Constitution is not self-interpreting. Only the Supreme Court of the US can give a definitive interpretation of what The Constitution says. SCOTUS has never been called on to interpret this issue, so we can only speculate as to what interpretations the words and punctuation have. A ...


-3

But the comma was not taken out. Every argument above rephrases the language as if only there are 2 clauses of the sentence:. "1) No person except a natural born citizen, 2) or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.". But that isn't what it says. It literally ...


2

The answers above are all hypothetical, but I think its important to add the clear statutory authority on the organization of American Indians, set out in Title 25 U.S.C (Indians): 25 U.S.C. § 5123 (a) Adoption; effective date Any Indian tribe shall have the right to organize for its common welfare, and may adopt an appropriate constitution and bylaws, and ...


0

The U.S. Constitution would not forbid an Indian tribe recognized by the United States from being organized as a hereditary monarchy, as the applicable limitations on grants of titles of nobility and a Republican form of government, by their terms, apply only to U.S. states and to the federal government. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 likewise does not ...


-3

Tl;dr Generally speaking, tribes can do whatever they want, as long as they’re not infringing on anyone’s human rights. Full answer: Tribes are more or less free to set themselves up however they want. Remember, reservations (almost always) lie outside of a state’s jurisdiction, so it would be difficult to argue that a reservation was infringing on the ...


2

Where in the US Constitution does it allow different states to administer different laws? Article IV outlines the relationship between the various states, as well as the relationship between each state and the United States Federal government. Doesn't this contradict the 14th amendment (or similar) which guarantees equal treatment under the law? No. Each ...


Top 50 recent answers are included