query: which doctrine allows the supreme court to determine if a law violates the constitution

pos: Judicial review in the United States Agents" that a person may bring a case on the grounds of an implied cause of action when no statutory procedure exists. Judicial review in the United States In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of

pos: Law of Russia reversed. Judicial Review allows courts to declare unconstitutional laws void. Constitutional Courts are therefore negative legislators. The interpretations of the constitution in the decisions of the Constitutional Court are also authoritative and binding on the political branches. The ordinary or lower courts may also apply judicial review. Courts of general jurisdiction may decline to apply (1) any law that violates the Constitution and (2) any normative regulations, in particular subordinate regulations that contravene statutes. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of regulations issued by government agencies. The Supreme Court has held that lower

pos: United States Constitution political powers" which as Executive privilege allows great discretion. This doctrine was applied in Court rulings on President Grant's duty to enforce the law during Reconstruction. It extends to the sphere of foreign affairs. Justice Robert Jackson explained, Foreign affairs are inherently political, "wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government ... [and] not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry." Critics of the Court object in two principal ways to self-restraint in judicial review, deferring as it does as a matter of doctrine to Acts of Congress and Presidential actions. Supreme Courts under the leadership of

pos: Indian High Courts Act 1861 sentence awarded by Sessions Judge is subject to approval by the High Court. (d) The High Court hear the cases involving interpretation of the Constitution or Law. (e) The High Court hears the cases on income tax, sales tax etc. Power of Judicial Review: The States High Courts like the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review. A High Court has the power to strike down any law of the State or any order of the executive if it violates any provision of the constitution or curtails or takes any of the Fundamental Rights of the people. Administrative and

pos: Politics of the Philippines legal cases. The Philippine Legal System is a hybrid form based on the Spanish Civil Law and Anglo-American Common Law system, Muslim regions observe the Sharia Law as binding legal system in accordance to their Islamic traditions The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and laws passed by the Congress shall be consistent with the Constitution. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution is part of the legal system, the doctrine of stare decisis applies in deciding legal controversies. The court may exercise judicial review to determine whether

pos: Judicial review in the United States Judicial review in the United States In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution. Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the

pos: Constitution of Bangladesh Bangladesh is not a state party to include the following. Article 111 of the constitution proclaims the doctrine of binding judicial precedent. According to the article, the law declared by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, including its Appellate Division and the High Court Division, are binding in all subordinate courts. The constitution does not specifically mention the term judicial review, but Article 102 allows writ petitions to be filed at the High Court Division for reviewing laws, the actions and policies of authories and lower court proceedings. Articles 7(2), 26, 44(1) & 102 are considered to indirectly support the system

pos: U.S. Congress in relation to the president and Supreme Court to the Court itself. The Constitution does not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review; however, the notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78. Originalists on the Supreme Court have argued that if the constitution doesn't say something explicitly it is unconstitutional to infer what it should, might or could have said. What this means is that the Supreme Court can nullify a congressional law. It is a huge check by the courts on the legislative authority and

pos: Courts of the Republic of Ireland must usually be held before a jury. Except in exceptional circumstances, court hearings must occur in public. The High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court have authority, by means of judicial review, to determine the compatibility of the common law and statute law with the Constitution. Similarly, the courts may determine the compatibility of the common law with statute law. The current system of courts is provided for in Article 34 of the Constitution of Ireland of 1937. However, it was not until the "Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961" became law that this system took effect.

pos: Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review. Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review. Another significant feature of these cases was the "basic features doctrine". An doctrine developed by the Indian Supreme Court and now a part of Indian constitutional law, the High Court held that the doctrine, which curtails Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution, did not apply in Singapore as this would amount to usurpation of Parliament's

pos: Republic of Ireland any direct administrative role as such, but they serve for planning, coordination and statistical purposes. Ireland has a common law legal system with a written constitution that provides for a parliamentary democracy. The court system consists of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court, all of which apply the Irish law and hear both civil and criminal matters. Trials for serious offences must usually be held before a jury. The High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have authority, by means of judicial review, to determine the compatibility

neg: Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform & Racial Activities cloudy" responses given to Scull did not meet these standards. The Court reversed and remanded the case to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform & Racial Activities Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform and Racial Activities, 359 U.S. 344 (1959), is a 9-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that a conviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution if the defendant is not given an opportunity "to determine whether he was within his rights in

neg: Abstention doctrine a way that eliminates the constitutional problem or to rule it void under the state's own constitution. For "Pullman" abstention to be invoked, three conditions must be apparent: Under "Pullman" abstention, the federal court retains jurisdiction to hear the constitutional issues in the case if the state court's resolution is still constitutionally suspect. In "Government and Civil Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor", 353 U.S. 364 (1957), the Supreme Court held that litigants must "inform" the state court that they are contending that the state law violates a federal constitutional provision, so that the state court may take that into

neg: Robert Muise and a previous Supreme Court Decision, "1947 Everson v Board of Education", and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. Cutler sought a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also sought to "roll back" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law now violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law (referring to the extension of pre-tax subsidies until October 1, 2016, but only if the state insurance commissioner agrees.) The court dismissed the case for lack of standing. Notice of appeal

neg: Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform & Racial Activities Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform & Racial Activities Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform and Racial Activities, 359 U.S. 344 (1959), is a 9-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that a conviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution if the defendant is not given an opportunity "to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer" an inquiry put to him by the legislature of a U.S. state. The state of Virginia enacted a package of statutes

neg: Nullification (U.S. Constitution) Aaron" directly held that states may not nullify federal law. The Supreme Court rejected interposition in a similar context. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a federal district court that rejected Louisiana's attempt to use interposition to protect its segregated schools. The district court found that interposition by the states is inconsistent with the Constitution, which gives the power to decide constitutional issues to the Supreme Court, not the states. The court held: "The conclusion is clear that interposition is not a constitutional doctrine. If taken seriously, it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority. Otherwise, 'it amounted to no

neg: Hoffman v. Jones a state supreme court abandoned the almost-150-year-old doctrine of contributory negligence, which precluded an injured victim from recovery if the victim had contributed to the incident to any degree. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the concept of "pure" comparative negligence, which allows a victim to be compensated for the percentage of harm caused by the at-fault person. The decision of the court in Hoffman v. Jones has been cited in law school textbooks, and now the concept of comparative negligence is the prevailing doctrine. "Hoffman" was cited by the California Supreme Court as precedent for their decision to adopt a

neg: Canadian constitutional law determine if interjurisdictional immunity comes into play: Though there remains some debate, it has generally been accepted that interjurisdictional immunity applies equally to both the federal and provincial governments. Nevertheless, virtually all of the case law concerns situations where provincial laws encroach on federal matters. In "Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society", the Supreme Court expressed caution in employing the doctrine in future cases because: As Chief Justice McLachlin explained in that decision: Canadian constitutional law Canadian constitutional law () is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the

neg: Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore who cannot avail themselves of the protection afforded by Article 12(2) may try to argue that they are a member of a group defined by a law in a way that violates Article 12(1). The rational nexus test, also known as the doctrine of reasonable classification, is a three-stage test formulated by the courts to determine if the manner in which a law classifies a group of persons is discriminatory. The equality guaranteed by the provision is a relative and not an absolute concept; it does not require that all persons are treated alike, but rather that all persons in

neg: South African administrative law broad or vague, however, that the authority to whom the power is delegated is unable to determine the nature and the scope of the powers conferred, as this would lead to arbitrary exercise of delegated powers. On the principle of legality, the court held that constitutional democracy is founded on the values of the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law; any law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid. The exercise of public power must therefore comply with the Constitution, which is the supreme law, and with the doctrine of legality, which is part of that law.

neg: Calder v. Bull of oblivion, or of pardon. [emphasis in the original] Although this case is good law, courts do not decide if a law violates the ex post facto clause based on its benefit to the person it is enacted upon. Nor are challenges made to some retrospective law based on a separation of powers dispute. Calder v. Bull Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law. First, the "ex post facto" clause of the United States Constitution applies to criminal laws that

neg: Adultery law in India problem of gender bias which arises from the reading of the current section. The Court began to hear the arguments on this petition on 1 August 2018. The Court said that if the party challenging this section can simply prove that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then the section will be struck down. A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on 27 September 2018 unanimously ruled to scrap Section 497. While reading the judgment, Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, "it (adultery) cannot be a criminal offence," however it can be a ground for civil issues

neg: Doctrine of colourability colourable legislation was fully discussed by the Supreme Court in K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa, a decision which has been treated as settling the law on the subject. This ruling was confirmed in the Supreme Court decision of Sonapur Tea Co. v. Deputy Commissioner. Doctrine of colourability The doctrine of colourability is the idea that when a legislature wants to do something that it cannot do within the constraints of its government's constitution, it colours the law with a substitute purpose, allowing it to accomplish its original goal. Under the constitution of India, exclusive jurisdiction for the Union and

neg: Basic structure doctrine the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is "law" within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part and any

neg: Commercial speech to determine whether commercial speech regulation violates the First Amendment: Until the 1976 Supreme Court case "Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council", commercial speech in the United States was viewed as an "unprotected" category of speech beyond the pale of First Amendment protection. Indeed, the idea of commercial speech was first introduced by the Supreme Court when it upheld "Valentine v. Chrestensen" in 1942, which ruled that commercial speech in public is not constitutionally protected. In upholding the regulation, the Supreme Court said, "We are...clear that the Constitution imposes...no restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising".

neg: Augustus Octavius Bacon reverted by operation of Georgia law to the heirs of the Senator." The decision involved the doctrine of cy pres, and it was necessary for the court to determine Senator Bacon's probable intention in the matter. The Court concluded that, if Senator Bacon had been able to know that his objective was impossible or illegal, he would have preferred that the land revert to his heirs. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, holding that refusing to apply the doctrine of cy pres did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the

neg: Erie doctrine the federal court encounters a state law issue in diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction, or bankruptcy jurisdiction, the federal court must honor state common law when deciding state law issues. In effect, when the U.S. Constitution does not control and Congress has not legislated (or cannot legislate) on a topic, then the laws of the states necessarily govern and state judge-made rules are equally binding on the federal courts as state statutes. The federal court must determine if either 1) state law is clear as to the case in controversy, or 2) if not, then has the state's highest court ruled

neg: Government of Kansas the constitution. The Court has appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with that of the state’s borders on all cases “at law and in equity” except criminal cases, in which the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. If in any event there is any conflict in determining which court has jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is granted the power to determine which court has jurisdiction, with no appeal from the Court’s determination. The Supreme Court is headquartered in the Kansas Judicial Center in Topeka, Kansas and hears oral arguments every year. The Supreme Court supervises the lower courts through the Administrative Office

neg: Talent Agencies Act (California) law by the California Supreme Court; the U.S. Supreme Court found the Labor Commissioner's interpretation relevant to arbitration was also incorrect (). If the Ninth Circuit continues this trend, finding the TAA facially violates the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and as applied violates the Contract Clause, Commerce Clause, First, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, which has led to personal managers forfeiting an estimated $500,000,000 in otherwise-owed commissions (see ), the voiding of any contracts will end. Eliminating that consequence will align the Act's enforcement with a litany of California Supreme Court determinations (see

neg: Napue v. Illinois Napue v. Illinois Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of the defendant. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly addressed whether the

neg: Abstention doctrine for "Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.", 312 U.S. 496 (1941). Concisely, the doctrine holds that "the federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them." This doctrine permits a federal court to stay a plaintiff's claim that a state law violates the United States Constitution until the state's judiciary has had an opportunity to apply the law to the plaintiff's particular case. The hope is to avoid a federal constitutional ruling by allowing the state courts to construe the law in

neg: Stogner v. California Stogner's subsequent motion for dismissal under the same grounds. Stogner appealed on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, first appellate district; the Court of Appeal affirmed. Stogner ultimately appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling that the law was a violation of the ex post facto clause of the constitution by a split 5–4 decision. The Supreme Court held that "a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution." Stogner v.

neg: Last resort rule such allocations in light of restrictions imposed by the adequate and independent state ground doctrine. Because the Supreme Court may ultimately review state decisions denying relief under the federal Constitution based on parallel state constitutional grounds, the first branch of the doctrine is a more easily justified application of the last resort rule. Last resort rule In Constitutional law, the Last Resort Rule is a largely prudential rule which gives a federal court the power to avoid a constitutional issue in some circumstances. This rule dictates that, even if all other jurisdictional and justiciability obstacles are surmounted, federal courts still

neg: Perez v. Sharp alone. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Douglas Edmonds held that the statute violated the religious freedom of the plaintiffs, since the anti-miscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacrament of matrimony. By its decision in this case, the California Supreme Court became the first court of the 20th century to hold that a state anti-miscegenation law violates the US Constitution. It preceded "Loving v. Virginia", the case in which the United States Supreme Court invalidated all such state statutes, by 19 years, and antedated the civil rights milestones such as "Brown v. Board of Education"

neg: Precedent — a form of extreme legal positivism — which holds that legislation is the only valid source of law because it has been voted on democratically; thus, it is not the judiciary's role to create law, but rather to interpret and apply statute, and therefore their decisions must reflect that. "Stare decisis" is not usually a doctrine used in civil law systems, because it violates the legislative positivist principle that only the legislature may make law. Instead, the civil law system relies on the doctrine of "jurisprudence constante", according to which if a court has adjudicated a consistent line of

neg: Severability of the passed statute as possible. The severability doctrine is frequently used by the Supreme Court of the United States; for example, severability was a key issue in the Supreme Court's decisions related to "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius" to determine if all or only parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had to be deemed unconstitutional when one part was deemed as such. Severability In law, severability (sometimes known as salvatorius, from Latin) refers to a provision in a contract which states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise

neg: Remedies in Singapore constitutional law "Khawaja" Lord Bridge of Harwich said that given the seriousness of the allegations against a detainee and the consequences of the detention, "the court should not be satisfied with anything less than probability of a high degree". As mentioned above, an aggrieved party who alleges that legislation enacted by Parliament violates his or her constitutional rights may apply for a declaration from the High Court that the legislation is unconstitutional. Article 4 of the Constitution affirms that it is the supreme law of Singapore and that "any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is

neg: Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor in force in Singapore, all Acts which were validly passed by Parliament would be consistent with Article 9(1) even if they deprived a person of life or personal liberty. Being Acts in force in Singapore, they were "in accordance with the law". The Privy Council rejected such an approach to interpreting the term "in accordance with law". Citing Article 4, which declares the Constitution to be the supreme law of Singapore and states that laws enacted by the Legislature which are inconsistent with the Constitution are void, the court maintained it had the duty to determine whether any Act of

neg: Supreme Court of Poland effectively retires 40% of the Supreme Court bench including the First President of the Supreme Court, Malgorzata Gersdorf. Opposition groups, the EU, the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary (2017) have claimed the law is unconstitutional because it violates the principles of the independence of the judiciary. In August 2018 the Supreme Court sent questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the reforms. Under European Union treaties the court can prevent the law from coming into force if it undermines EU treaties regarding judicial independence. On Dec. 17, 2018 the President of Poland signed a law

neg: Scott Walker (politician) May 25, 2011, Walker signed a voter ID law that required voters to show a government-issued ID before casting a ballot. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court to invalidate the law on December 13, 2011, claiming the law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. On April 29, 2014, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman struck down the law, saying it violated the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the voter ID law under the Constitution of Wisconsin in two other cases in July 2014. On September 12,

neg: Judicial review in the United States the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under

neg: Pledge of Allegiance a ruling by a New Hampshire lower federal court which found that the pledge's reference to God does not violate non-pledging students' rights if student participation in the pledge is voluntary. A United States Supreme Court appeal of this decision was denied on June 13, 2011. In September 2013, a case was brought before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that the pledge violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Constitution of Massachusetts. In May 2014, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the pledge does not discriminate against atheists, saying that the words "under God" represent a patriotic, not a religious,

neg: Supreme Court of Mauritius cases where no legal remedy is provided by any enactment. Section 83 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the interpretation of the Constitution. It has the power and jurisdiction to hear and determine any complaint of a disciplinary nature in respect of the professional conduct of a law practitioner or a ministerial officer including a land surveyor. The Supreme Court has full power and jurisdiction to hear and determine all appeals, whether civil or criminal, made to the Court from: a judge in the exercise of his original jurisdiction, the Bankruptcy Division, the Master

neg: High Court of Australia The court was keen to establish its position at the top of the Australian court hierarchy. In "Deakin v Webb" (1904) Griffith criticised the Supreme Court of Victoria for following a Privy Council decision about the Constitution of Canada, rather than following the High Court's own decision on the Australian Constitution. In Australian constitutional law, the early decisions of the court were influenced by United States constitutional law. In the case of "D'Emden v Pedder" (1904), which involved the application of Tasmanian stamp duty to a federal official's salary, the court adopted the doctrine of implied immunity of instrumentalities which

neg: Fundamental error Fundamental error Fundamental error is a legal term provided by United State Courts to describe an error which occurs whenever a judgement violates a federal fundamental right. In United States constitutional law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court. State courts within the United States may define fundamental error rules independently of the federal courts. State fundamental error rules may include errors which violate rights in additional to those rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but these rules may not infringe upon

neg: Calder v. Bull has no jurisdiction to determine that any law of any state Legislature, contrary to the Constitution of such state is void. Third, the Supreme Court said that: no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; "nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit". [emphasis in the original] Fourth, the Supreme Court decided that this specific act of the Connecticut legislature, and any other state legislative act, is not a violation of the "ex post facto" clause if "there is no fact done by Bull" and "wife", Plaintiff's in Error, that is in any manner

neg: Law of Nauru Parliament passed since independence in 1968; Regulations; precedents of the Supreme Court of Nauru; and customary law". Article 85 of the Constitution stipulates that law in existence at the time of independence continues to be applied until amended or repealed by Parliament. The Constitution of Nauru, adopted in 1968, establishes itself as the supreme law of the country, and provides for the voiding of any statute inconsistent with it (art.2). Art.54(1) grants to the Supreme Court "original jurisdiction to determine any question arising under or involving the interpretation or effect of any provision of th[e] Constitution". Since 12 May 2016

neg: Constitution of India Commission was formed to examine a constitutional update. The government of India establishes term-based law commissions to recommend legal reforms, facilitating the rule of law. In "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala", the Supreme Court ruled that an amendment cannot destroy what it seeks to modify; it cannot tinker with the constitution's basic structure or framework, which are immutable. Such an amendment will be declared invalid, although no part of the constitution is protected from amendment; the basic structure doctrine does not protect any one provision of the constitution. According to the doctrine, the constitution's basic features (when "read as

neg: Supreme court the principles applied by the supreme court in its decisions are binding upon all lower courts; this is intended to apply a uniform interpretation and implementation of the law. In civil law jurisdictions the doctrine of "stare decisis" is not generally considered to apply, so the decisions of the supreme court are not necessarily binding beyond the immediate case before it; however, in practice the decisions of the supreme court usually provide a very strong precedent, or "jurisprudence constante", for both itself and all lower courts. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh is created by the provisions of the Constitution of

neg: Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States Connecticut's sex-offender registration statute did not violate the procedural due process of those to whom it applied, although the Court "expresses no opinion as to whether the State's law violates substantive due process principles." On 25 July 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s registration violated the ex post facto clause of the state's constitution and ruled that the requirement does not apply to persons who committed their crimes before the act became effective on 10 August 1994. The California Supreme Court ruled on 2 March 2015 that a state law barring sex offenders

neg: Assisted death in the United States In "Baxter v. Montana" the Montana Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision that state law allows for terminally ill Montanans to request lethal drugs from a physician under existing statutes. The Attorney General of the state of Montana sought an appeal from the Montana Supreme Court, but the court, by a decision of five to two, affirmed the lower court's ruling on the state law. The Court did, however, limit the scope of the decision by not determining if the state's constitution protected the right. Oregon voters first approved the Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) by general election in

neg: Constitution bench (India) State of Madras, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (basic structure doctrine) and Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (OBC reservations) etc. Constitution bench (India) Constitution bench is the name given to the benches of the Supreme Court of India which consist of at least five judges of the court which sit to decide any case “involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the Constitution of India. This provision has been mandated by Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India. The Chief Justice of India has the power to constitute a Constitution Bench and

neg: Nullification (U.S. Constitution) their actions were authorized by a federal statute, there was a disputed issue of federal law and the Supreme Court had authority to review the state court's judgment. Thus, the Supreme Court again found that the final power to interpret federal law lies in the federal courts, not the states. These two cases established the principle that the federal courts, not the states, have the final power to interpret the Constitution and to determine the Constitutional limits of federal power. These cases rejected the state's attempt to determine the limits of federal power. In 1819, Ohio imposed a tax on

neg: Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG) children’s products. Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG) Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court held that in order to determine if a breach of section 2(b) had occurred one first had to determine whether the conduct constituted non violent activity which attempted to convey meaning. This changed the law of the constitution of Quebec. The next step was to consider whether the effect or purpose of the legislation was to restrict

neg: Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG) Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG) Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court held that in order to determine if a breach of section 2(b) had occurred one first had to determine whether the conduct constituted non violent activity which attempted to convey meaning. This changed the law of the constitution of Quebec. The next step was to consider whether the effect or purpose of the legislation was to restrict freedom of

neg: Adequate and independent state ground law to determine whether a litigant has been deprived of “property” within the meaning of the Due Process clause. Adequate and independent state ground The adequate and independent state ground doctrine is a doctrine of United States law governing the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to review judgments entered by state courts. It is part of the basic framework of the American legal system that the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of questions of federal law but the state courts are the ultimate arbiters of the laws of each state. "See, e.g., Hortonville Joint School District No.

neg: Same-sex marriage in Oklahoma 17. On July 18, the court upheld the District Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision, concluding that Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban violates clauses of the United States Constitution, though it immediately stayed its ruling pending disposition of petition for review by the United States Supreme Court. Stanford Law Professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, an experienced Supreme Court litigator, joined as lead counsel for those challenging Oklahoma's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples in August. The Supreme Court rejected Oklahoma's appeal on October 6, 2014 and the Tenth Circuit Court's ruling subsequently went into effect, thus legalizing same-sex marriage in Oklahoma.

neg: Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe Law. The website contained the following disclaimer: John Doe, a convicted sex offender who was thereby subject to the law, filed suit in Federal court, claiming that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The District Court issued an injunction regarding the law's public disclosure provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that such disclosure did indeed violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because registrants were not provided Doe with a hearing prior to the public disclosure. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

neg: Arbitration in the United States subject to arbitration. For example, in "Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson", the Supreme Court of the United States held that "under the FAA, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator." In other words, the law typically allows federal courts to decide these types of "gateway" or validity questions, but the Supreme Court ruled

neg: Constitution of Bhutan The King is also the Supreme Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Militia of Bhutan. The King is not answerable in a court of law for his actions, and his person is sacrosanct. However, the King is mandated to protect and uphold the Constitution "in the best interest and for the welfare of the people of Bhutan." Furthermore, there are Constitutional provisions for involuntary abdication in the event the King violates the Constitution. The Constitution entitles the King and the royal family to annuities from the State in accordance with law made by Parliament; all rights and

neg: D'Emden v Pedder itself... It follows that when a State attempts to give to its legislative or executive authority an operation which, if valid, would fetter, control, or interfere with, the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth, the attempt, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, is to that extent invalid and inoperative." On the use of United States case law, from which the doctrine had largely been drawn, the court acknowledged that decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States were of course not binding in Australia, but given the similarities between the American and Australian Constitutions,

neg: Law of the Republic of Ireland the general rule such statutory instruments have effect as if they were primary legislation. Ireland is a dualist state and treaties are not part of Irish domestic law unless incorporated by the Oireachtas. An exception to this rule might well be the provision in the constitution which says that "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States." However while this provision has been held to assimilate the doctrine of sovereign immunity into domestic law, the Supreme Court have held that the provision is not capable of conferring rights

neg: Napue v. Illinois prosecutor in the courtroom was not. In "Giglio", the Court also decided the threshold for materiality for "Napue" claims, holding: "A new trial is required if the false testimony could [...] in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury". Napue v. Illinois Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility

neg: Constitution of Malaysia incumbent elected legislators to change their political parties, the Supreme Court of Malaysia in the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly v Nordin Salleh held that an "anti party-hopping" provision in the Kelantan State Constitution violates the right to freedom of association. That provision stipulated that a member of the Kelantan legislative assembly who is a member of any political party shall cease to be a member of the legislative assembly if he or she resigns or is expelled from such political party. The Supreme Court held that the Kelantan anti party-hopping provision was void because the "direct and inevitable consequence" of

neg: Constitutional Court of Spain Constitutional Court of Spain The Constitutional Court of Spain () is the supreme interpreter of the Spanish Constitution, with the power to determine the constitutionality of acts and statutes made by any public body, central, regional, or local. It is defined in Part IX (sections 159 through 165) of the Constitution of Spain, and further governed by Organic Laws 2/1979 (Law of the Constitutional Court of 3 October 1979), 8/1984, 4/1985, 6/1988, 7/1999 and 1/2000. The court is the "supreme interpreter" of the Constitution, but since the court is not a part of the Spanish Judiciary, the Supreme Court is

neg: Neil Gorsuch Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services" (2005) as an "abdication of judicial duty", writing that deference is "more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design". In "United States v. Hinckley" (2008), Gorsuch argued that one possible reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act likely violates the nondelegation doctrine. Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had held the same view in their 2012 dissent of "Reynolds v. United States". Gorsuch has been an opponent of the dormant Commerce Clause, which allows state laws to be declared unconstitutional if they too

neg: Remedies in Singapore constitutional law of law has already declared conduct of that kind to be criminal and punishable as such"), which it said was embodied in Article 11(1) of the Constitution: Prospective overruling is a remedy available in constitutional cases, as in "Manogaran" the Court noted that the doctrine had been developed in US jurisprudence to deal with the consequences of laws being declared unconstitutional. It cited the United States Supreme Court decision "Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank" (1940): One limit to the doctrine's application is that it can only be applied by the Court of Appeal. The doctrine of prospective

neg: Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect to which the classification is made". Based on this principle, the Supreme Court of India subsequently formulated a two-stage test to determine if a classification made by a law was constitutional. The relevant stages were (1) whether the classification was founded on an intelligible differentia; and (2) whether the differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law in question. The Federal Court of Malaysia later adapted the rational nexus test by including an additional preceding stage,

neg: Nullification (U.S. Constitution) been upheld by the federal courts or to interfere with federal enforcement of that statute. "Ableman v. Booth" was the Supreme Court's most thorough examination yet of the theory of nullification. Like the decisions that preceded it, "Ableman" found that federal law was superior to state law, and that under the Constitution, the final power to determine the constitutionality of federal laws lies in the federal courts, not the states. "Ableman" found that the Constitution gave the Supreme Court final authority to determine the extent and limits of federal power and that the states therefore do not have the power

neg: Doctrine of Basic Structure law that abridges the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution, a constitutional amendment, also being an ordinary law within the meaning of Article 13, could not be in violation of the fundamental rights chapter contained in the Constitution of India. Therefore, all constitutional amendments thus far which were in contravention or which had made an exception to fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution were said to be void. In short, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament could not amend the Constitution of India to curtail the fundamental rights in the Constitution. This case was overruled in

neg: Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. District No. 1 of Snohomish County" (2008), the Supreme Court determined that the "Mobile"-"Sierra" doctrine also applied when the burden of the improvident contract was on the purchaser. The case was remanded to determine if the contract negotiated during the California electricity crisis of 2000–2001 was the result of market manipulation, which would eliminate one premise on which the "Mobile"-"Sierra" doctrine rests: that the contract rates are the product of fair, arms-length negotiations. Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956), is a United States Supreme Court case

neg: United States Constitution review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch. Two conflicting federal laws are under "pendent" jurisdiction if one presents a strict constitutional issue. Federal court jurisdiction is rare when a state legislature enacts something as under federal jurisdiction. To establish a federal system of national law, considerable effort goes into developing a spirit of comity between federal government and states. By the doctrine of 'Res judicata', federal courts give "full faith and credit" to State Courts. The Supreme Court will decide Constitutional issues of state law only on a case by case basis, and only by strict Constitutional

neg: Telecommunications in Sudan for stories critical of the government and security services. The Supreme Court in December 2011 overturned a lower court decision against several of the accused journalists, but NISS petitioned for a review of the higher court's decision. The Supreme Court rejected the NISS appeal in September 2012, but the security service continued to pursue defamation cases against several other journalists. The interim national constitution and law prohibit arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence, but the government routinely violates these rights. Emergency laws in Darfur and Blue Nile states legalize interference in privacy, family, home, and correspondence. Security forces

neg: In re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995 The Supreme Court had to decide which was superior, positive law or natural law. The Attorney General argued the Bill was adopted pursuant to a valid constitutional amendment which had passed with a support of a majority of the voters in a referendum. Court appointed Counsel arguing against constitutionality submitted that the legislature and people could not amend the constitution in a manner inconsistent with natural law. The Court therefore had to determine which was the ultimate rule of recognition for the State. Popular sovereignty is recognised in the constitution by allowing the legislature with a majority of the electorate

neg: Coram nobis cases for reasons it deems “compelling reasons” (such as resolving a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or resolving an important matter of law). Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot override any law enacted by Congress unless the law violates the Constitution. Federal courts also cannot repeal a statute unless Congress clearly intended to repeal the statute. In 1954, "United States v. Morgan" provides writ of coram nobis to former federal prisoners. The Court determined coram nobis relief “should be allowed . . . only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice”. Specifically, the circumstances must

neg: Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination the Supreme Court only hears "about one percent" of the cases that are brought before the court. Senator Orrin Hatch gave further arguments about the Doctrine of Incorporation, and further reviewed Sotomayor's statement of "fidelity to the law". Hatch also brought up the right to privacy, and that Sotomayor had stated that the Constitution "cannot be bent", and that courts "can apply the words of the Constitution to the facts of the case before them." Hatch next brought up once again the issue of "empathy" in judicial ruling. Sotomayor once again responded that personal experience does not trump the law.

neg: Entry of women to Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple Entry of women to Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple Sabarimala is a Hindu Temple in Kerala, India where women pilgrims of menstruating age (ages 10 to 50) were not legally allowed to enter between 1991 and 2018. In September 2018, a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India ruled that all pilgrims regardless of gender, including women in the menstruating age group, should be allowed entrance to Sabarimala. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that "any exception placed on women because of biological differences violates the Constitution" - that the ban violates the right to equality under Article 14,

neg: Adultery law in India of this problematic interpretation, the Supreme Court in December 2017 decided to accept the public interest litigation in which it has been prayed that the Court strikes down or completely does away with Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code entirely. It has been argued that the section violates two articles of the Constitution of India- Article 14 and Article 15. Article 14 reads as follows: "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." Article 15 reads as follows: "The State shall not discriminate

neg: Article Six of the United States Constitution (1957) ruled that no branch of the United States Government can have powers conferred upon it by treaty that have not been conferred by the United States Constitution. Federal and state legislators, executive officers and judges are, by the third clause of the article, bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Congress may determine the form of such an oath. In "Ex parte Garland" (1866), the Supreme Court held that a test oath would violate the Constitution, so it invalidated the law requiring the following oath: The Supreme Court found that the law constituted an unconstitutional "ex post

neg: High Court of Fiji High Court of Fiji The High Court of Fiji is one of three courts that was established by of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji — the others being the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The Constitution empowered Parliament to create other courts; these were to be subordinate to the High Court, which was authorized to oversee all proceedings of such courts. The High Court had unlimited original jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil or criminal proceedings under any law and such other original jurisdiction as is conferred on it under the Constitution. The High Court consists of

neg: Jessica's Law the Missouri Supreme Court regarding the Sex Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering

neg: Clear and present danger Clear and present danger Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. The test was replaced in 1969 with "Brandenburg v. Ohio"s "imminent lawless action" test. Before the 20th century, most free speech issues involved prior restraint. Starting in the early 1900s, the Supreme Court began to consider cases in which persons were punished 'after' speaking or publishing. The primary legal test used in the United States to determine if speech could be criminalized

neg: Use-of-force law in Missouri Use-of-force law in Missouri Use-of-force law in Missouri refers to the law & legal doctrine which determine whether a member of law enforcement in the state of Missouri is justified in the amount of force used to gain control of an unruly situation or person, including situations involving death. In the United States, doctrine about use of force is primarily defined by the individual states, although there have been some Supreme Court decisions of limited scope. Missouri's legal experts have said the use of force laws in Missouri are considered more officer-friendly than that in other states. Such laws have

neg: Yes on Term Limits v. Savage the decision in YOTL to either the full Tenth circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court. His office says that they plan to continue their prosecution of Paul Jacob, Susan Johnson and Rick Carpenter. Earlier in 2008, Edmondson told Oklahoma City's Journal Record, "If the courts determine that the state's process violates the First Amendment, so be it. Until that time, our law will be enforced.", On January 21, 2009, the Tenth Circuit announced that it was rejecting Edmondson's request that it rehear the case. The state had asked for an en banc rehearing, but no judge wanted to rehear

neg: Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic () is a specialized type of court which primarily works to protect the people in the Czech Republic against violations of the Constitution by either the legislature, government or by any other subject that violates people's constitutional rights and freedoms. In this respect, it is similar in functionality to the US Supreme Court, but is distinct from the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. Of all the various levels of the Czech Judiciary it is the one created with the greatest specificity in the constitution. The decisions

neg: Oregon Supreme Court are not required to follow the decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court for decisions based on federal law, regardless as to if the federal court is located within the state. However, federal courts are bound to follow Oregon law and decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court for cases that involve disputes based on Oregon law, even when those federal courts are not based in Oregon, per the Erie Doctrine developed by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason federal courts, and courts from other states, can certify questions about Oregon law to the Oregon Supreme Court in order to clarify

neg: De facto government doctrine state. De facto government doctrine The "de facto" government doctrine is an element of Argentine case law related to the validity of the actions of "de facto" governments. It allowed the government actions taken during those times to stay valid after the "de facto" government had ended. It was initially ruled by the Supreme Court in 1930, and stayed active as law until the 1994 amendment of the Argentine Constitution. A similar ruling was enacted in 1865, just a few years after the 1853 Constitution. Bartolomé Mitre declared himself President of Argentina after the victory at the Battle of Pavón,

neg: De facto government doctrine De facto government doctrine The "de facto" government doctrine is an element of Argentine case law related to the validity of the actions of "de facto" governments. It allowed the government actions taken during those times to stay valid after the "de facto" government had ended. It was initially ruled by the Supreme Court in 1930, and stayed active as law until the 1994 amendment of the Argentine Constitution. A similar ruling was enacted in 1865, just a few years after the 1853 Constitution. Bartolomé Mitre declared himself President of Argentina after the victory at the Battle of Pavón, under

neg: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied "New York v. United States" to show that the act violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional. In "Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association" (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which prohibited states that banned sports betting when the law was enacted from legalizing it, violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and invalided the entire law. The Court ruled that the anti-commandeering doctrine applied to congressional attempts

neg: Law number of judges mediating disputes to determine outcome. Most countries have systems of appeal courts, answering up to a supreme legal authority. In the United States, this authority is the Supreme Court; in Australia, the High Court; in the UK, the Supreme Court; in Germany, the "Bundesverfassungsgericht"; and in France, the "Cour de Cassation". For most European countries the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg can overrule national law, when EU law is relevant. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg allows citizens of the Council of Europe member states to bring cases relating to human rights issues before

neg: History of the Supreme Court of the United States was "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965), which established that the Constitution protected the right to privacy. Chief Justice Earl Warren was succeeded by Warren E. Burger, who served from 1969 to 1986. The Burger Court is best remembered for its ruling in "Roe v. Wade" (1973), which held that there is a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion in some circumstances. The Court also made important decisions relating to the First Amendment. In "Lemon v. Kurtzman" (1971), it established the ""Lemon" test" for determining if legislation violates the establishment clause. Similarly, it established the ""Miller" test" for laws banning obscenity

neg: Supreme Court of Ireland cases. This is when a Bill is referred to it by the President for an opinion on its constitutionality before promulgation under Article 26 of the Constitution or when the court must determine under Article 12 of the Constitution whether the President has become incapacitated. The Supreme Court originally had little discretion to determine which cases it hears as requirements to seek the leave of either the trial court or the Supreme Court itself before an appeal could be brought were rare. After the Thirty-third Amendment created the Court of Appeal, however, the Supreme Court's appelate jurisdiction is entirely by

neg: Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs the common law, "courts are the proper and only authentic expositors of what the law is at any given time". "Teo Soh Lung" is also significant because the High Court denied the application of the basic features doctrine in Singapore. This doctrine, first developed in Indian case law, prevents attempted constitutional amendments which abrogate any of its "basic structure" or "essential features" even if the procedural requirements for constitutional amendments are met. Chua J. held that the doctrine was not applicable to the Singapore Constitution: "Considering the differences in the making of the Indian and our Constitution, it cannot be

neg: Open-fields doctrine Open-fields doctrine The open-fields doctrine (also open-field doctrine or open-fields rule), in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal doctrine that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, "unless there is some other legal basis for the search," such a search "must exclude the home and any adjoining land (such as a yard) that is within an enclosure or otherwise protected from public scrutiny." The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Hester v. United States", which

neg: John Roberts Supreme Court nomination Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in "Griswold v. Connecticut", in which Justice Stewart wrote, ""We are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that, I cannot do."" In "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld", Roberts was part of a unanimous panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects known as enemy combatants. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the court, ruled that Hamdan, a driver for al-Qaeda leader

neg: Basic structure doctrine amend the Constitution, the power in question can be exercised over all the provisions of the Constitution. It would be unreasonable to hold that the word "Law" in article 13 (2) takes in Constitution Amendment Acts passed under article 368." In both cases, the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368. In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in "Golaknath v. State of Punjab". A bench of eleven judges (the largest ever at the time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of

neg: Chi Chia-wei inconsistent with the Constitution. On 21 March 2013, he once more applied for a license; when he was denied, he appealed upward to the Taipei City Government's Department of Civil Affairs, who referred the constitutionality question to the Taipei Higher Administrative Court and then the Supreme Administrative Court in 2015. Both Chi and the Department requested a constitutional interpretation on the issue and asked the court to focus on whether Taiwan's Civil Code should allow same-sex marriage and if not, whether that violates articles under the Constitution of the Republic of China pertaining to equality and the freedom to marry.

neg: Nullification (U.S. Constitution) given the power to determine whether federal laws are consistent with the Constitution, with the Supreme Court having final authority. Thus, the federal courts have held that under the Constitution, federal law is controlling over state law, and the final power to determine whether federal laws are unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts. The courts therefore have held that the states do not have the power to nullify federal law. The concept of nullification of federal law by the states was not discussed at the Constitutional Convention. The records of the Constitutional Convention therefore do not provide support

neg: 1997 Constitution of Fiji: Chapter 9 hear and determine appeals from all final judgments of the Court of Appeal. A case may be brought before the Supreme Court only if the Court of Appeal has determined to refer the case to it, or if the Supreme Court has, in its own judgment, decided to hear an appeal; proceedings in this court may not be initiated by individuals. The Supreme Court has the power to review, vary, affirm, or discard decisions of the Court of Appeal, may order retrials, and may award costs to defendants and plaintiffs. Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all subordinate

neg: Tea Rose – Rectanus doctrine federal registration. Tea Rose – Rectanus doctrine The "Tea Rose-Rectanus" doctrine or remote, good-faith user doctrine is a common law rule of United States trademark law that determines the geographic scope of rights. The doctrine allows a junior user of a mark that is geographically remote from the senior user of the mark to establish priority over a senior user's claim to the mark in the junior user's area. The constructive use and notice sections of the Lanham Act limited the applicability of this doctrine. The doctrine is named for two early twentieth-century United States Supreme Court cases, "Hanover Star

neg: Tea Rose – Rectanus doctrine Tea Rose – Rectanus doctrine The "Tea Rose-Rectanus" doctrine or remote, good-faith user doctrine is a common law rule of United States trademark law that determines the geographic scope of rights. The doctrine allows a junior user of a mark that is geographically remote from the senior user of the mark to establish priority over a senior user's claim to the mark in the junior user's area. The constructive use and notice sections of the Lanham Act limited the applicability of this doctrine. The doctrine is named for two early twentieth-century United States Supreme Court cases, "Hanover Star Milling Co.