Essentially they assert that Article II provides no basis to override the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to establish new standards that conflict with legislative enactments. Subsequently they contend that because Florida did not have a statewide vote recount standard and counties were using different standards to decide which votes would count, Florida was not treating all its citizens equally under the law thus violating the Equal Protection Clause. This was problematic in that two voters could have marked their ballot in the same manner but in one county it would be deemed acceptable and in another it would be rejected. It is critical to note that "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government officials from implementing an electoral system that gives the votes of similarly situated voters different effect based on the happenstance of the county or district in which those voters live." Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104
There are quite a few people who argue that the Articles of Confederation are unacceptable for the United States, however there are people who question whether they are or are not unnaceptable. These people think that since there was no single leader to tell them what to do, since each state had one vote in congress, and since the congress was allowed to deal with westered lands, that the articles were acceptable. “[The articles of confederation] had no executive or judicial branch, the Confederation could not levy taxes, [and] all states had to agree before the Articles could be changed…” Regardless, the Articles of Confederation were unsuitable for the United States because there was no judicial or executive branches, all the states had
However, the group was prevented from doing so: because prior to the ruling, doing so would violate a federal statute that prohibits the use of advertisements to promote or discriminate against any candidate in an election. But because the First Amendment prevents the making of any laws preventing people from practicing Free Speech, the Supreme Court eradicated this federal statute; this made all political ads legal, regardless of nature. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated after the decision “With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues." (McConnell v. FEC) For this reason, many believe that overturning the Citizens United ruling would be unconstitutional and by doing so would the Supreme Court would be limiting Freedom of
A divided New York Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional because it has the primary effect of advancing religion (Mercer Law Review, n.d). As the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In this case the state of New York Legislature violated the Constitution. Therefore, the holding for this case by Justice Souter signifies that Chapter 748 violated the Establishment Clause. Souter held that the state law departed from the constitutional mandate of neutrality toward religion by delegating the state’s discretionary authority over public schools and that a state may not delegate its civic authority to a group chosen according to religious criteria (Osborne, n.d). The statute was also seen as impermissible as an advancement of religious
The commission had told him that he can't make this complaint since it wasn't under the Individual's Right Protection Act because it didn't include the sexual orientation act. The judge found that the judge had protection against discrimination on the basis which was an unjustified violation of section 15 of the charter. The respondents have claimed and voiced their opinion by saying that the case concerns the legislative under section 15 that it
There was a clear lesson here: immigration regulation is a matter for the federal government. Any attempt to regulate immigration laws where Congress had already regulated it even interrelated efforts, are unconstitutional. In later cases, the Court made it distinct that there is opportunity for state and local participation in the regulation of the lives of immigrants, although not inevitably in the regulation and enforcement of laws governing the movement of immigration itself. In the case of DeCanas v. Bica (1976), the question that the Court was given was whether a California law that established sanctions on business owners who hired non-citizens unofficial to work in the United States violate on federal immigration powers. The Court disapproved
If, a court would say there was an agreement or contract based on the facts, Candie has a defense and would be able to have the contract rescission. Her defense would be a mistake of fact. (Miller, 2013) The mistake being that the word “slot” was mistakenly left out of the advertisement. The UETA does not make anyone use electronic forms, agreements, or contracts. The act is for those that agree to do business electronically.
This means, the states are free to govern themselves and all powers not given to Congress by the Articles of Confederation belong to the States. Article II quickly caused problems for the Congress because it had little authority over the sovereign states in terms of enforcing laws. Another weakness was, Congress didn’t have the power to tax. For example, Congress could send an invoice saying that a state needs to pay taxes, but the state could essentially just rip up the invoice and refuse to pay because Congress didn’t have the power to collect
Medina, Jr. represented Life magazine. Medina asserted that the privacy law in New York was unconstitutional because it is too broad and corrective. Medina also argued that the prior ruling in the case was unsuitable because the jury was allowed to conclude liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy and the privacy law does not impact freedom of the press. He put forth that the “fictionalization” aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression.
The Court upheld disclosure requirements, voluntary public financing provisions, and limits on individual contributions. The Court did not uphold the caps on campaign spending, caps on spending by a candidate and family members to their own campaign, and limits on independent expenditures were abolished. Additionally, Buckley ruled compulsory acceptance of public financing unconstitutional taking an option away from campaign reformers. As demonstrated, Buckley was a monumental ruling that attempted to protect individual’s rights of expression while also protecting the integrity of American