These are important provisions, but they have received such checkered enforcement in modern law that they can hardly be expected to compel governmental respect for the rights of property owners. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2390324 Merrill and Smith view Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s famous opinion in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837),6 rejecting a contract clause challenge to the state-authorized construction of a free bridge to compete with an existing toll bridge under a prior charter, as striking a good balance between the need for change in the face of technological innovation and the importance of stability to encourage investments .The original toll bridge company claimed that its corporate charter impliedly conferred monopoly status which the state could not abridge. Taney declared that a corporate charter should be strictly construed to encompass only express guarantees,
COMM400 Case Study #2 Abstract I chose the case of New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc. This case involves issues of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, trademark infringement, and the restraints that can legally be enforced if the trademark’s owner claims it has been used inappropriately. Although the First Amendment protects unauthorized trademark usage in comedic, parodied or critical usage situations, it does not guarantee that trademark usage will never be used without the owner’s consent, especially for the purpose of newsgathering. The core issue in this case is whether or not trademark infringement actually happened. In order for the court to determine whether or not a trademark has been infringed, considerations such as the “strength of marks, the similarity in appearance of the products, the meaning of the marks, the kinds of goods in question,, and the intention of defendant using the mark” must be considered (2012).
SUSPENSION OF HABEAUS CORPUS UNCONSTIUTIONAL? In Article I, section IX of the U.S. Constitution is states “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Therefore, any suspension of habeas corpus, either short-term or long lasting, is a crucial action that must be applied strictly as last resort and only when confronted with disastrous and unforeseen situations. Such, situations like the Civil Wars and attacks on the US by terrorist are most definitely disastrous and unforeseen and are without doubt constitutional. Habeas Corpus is the lawful ability of a prisoner to apply for release from a prison due to a permissible and/or truthful inaccuracy in either the trial or sentencing process. The suspension of Habeas Corpus is one of the most weighed upon acts in United States history for the reason that it takes away the rights given under the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court recognized that Judicial Review must also be cultivated into Judicial Sovereignty; the idea that a law may be held unconstitutional and binding on the other branches. The nation-state relationship served as the greatest obstacle for the Supreme Court in preserving the Union. In order to preserve the American Union the Supreme Court steered the cases, of the period, in order to create a consolidated nation-state. Preserving the American Union is reflected in all decisions of the cases the cases that fallow. In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court invalidated a law, passed by Congress, by declaring an act unconstitutional for the first time.
Effect of HRA 1998 on Adverse Possession Another area affected by human rights is that of adverse possession of registered land. According to MacKenzie & Phillips :- "…. acquisition of title by adverse possession could be said to be incompatible with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998." Gravell points out :- "It has been argued that the statutory scheme under the Limitation Act 1980 for the extinction of title by adverse possession involves the infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, the infringement of the right to protection of property ……". The government anticipated that adverse possession would lead to a breach of human rights and, in an attempt for compatibility with the Convention, s.96-98 of the Land Registration Act 2002 introduced a new regime for dealing with adverse possession on registered land.
Leah Brown Argument FOR Prenuptial Agreements and Why They Should Be Enforced 1. If the agreement is valid. a. A prenuptial agreement requires each spouse to make full disclosure of his or her assets. In divorce, it is quite common for the husband to undervalue assets or fail to disclose them at all, so these assets can’t be made part of a settlement agreement.
Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best.” He goes on to say that “government's sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.” Basically, Paine is stating to the common people that they have the opportunity to form their own representation of government and do it in a way that truly represents their wants and needs. He is also knocking the form of government the British have and elaborating on why they need to separate due to their own needs for America. Paine would later go into more depth of the style of government Great Britain rules with. The second and perhaps most important key point Paine was trying to explain was the Monarchy rule
The Supreme court decision included, “ Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Ultimately, this case highlighted the power of the Supreme Court to deviate from the free exercise clause in cases of religious acts that are socially unacceptable or justifies multiple marriages ( Reynolds vs. United States). Lastly, political institutions that limit the impact of Supreme Court decisions include the fact that Constitutional Amendments can be passed at any time to overturn the decision of the Supreme court. This specific power is safeguarded under the Supremacy clause, which designates the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” and a doctrine that can be utilized in times of conflict in the law. Lastly, appellate jurisdiction limits Supreme Court decisions, as the Supreme court has the jurisdiction to hear cases from lower courts and change the outcomes of those decisions if
It states that in order to be entitled to bring a case, there must be a legitimate controversy, as opposed to simply a hypothetical situation or a friendly, faux case in order to prove some sort of point. It also states that there must be actual harm caused by the law or practice that is being addressed as opposed to a simply having dislike for an aspect of government. Lastly, standing states that one is not allowed to challenge the constitutionality of federal government action solely because he or she pays taxes. The reason this is an issue is primarily because some people thought they could sue because they did not like where their tax dollars were going, but the Court’s response was that they had the power to vote for politicians who would help put their money into different funds. It is easier now than in the past to acquire standing and people can file class-action suits or ask the courts to order federal officials to carry out an act that they were under a legal act to perform or refrain from if it does not follow the
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.