Search results for: "IF" (3032 results)
Amendment as a purely negative right, protecting speakers from government action based on their speech. Yet if the First Amendment bars only government
Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 best explained why.1 To paraphrase his thought, I would initially ask you what would happen if no government body had this
enforcement if the plaintiffs were to prevail. I. The Statutory Argument A. The Syllogism Here is the legal syllogism, as spelled out in the complaint. The
could face criminal prosecution after the fact if they published material harmful to U.S. national security interests,2 history has largely vindicated
discrimination. If individuals have multiple ways of modulating their identities, discrimination against them will take multiple forms, including the
omega, Presidents will continue to cite it to evade, minimize, and commandeer congres- sional powers. If this Article’s assertions are correct
did what every federal prosecutor knows they must do in the face of political meddling in a case—even if that meddling seemingly comes at the behest
eds., 2014) (describing fragmentation in the global health governance system). This Note uses the perhaps more ac- cessible, if less precise
qualifying resolution submitted by a shareholder. If the company can reach a private deal with the shareholder to withdraw the proposal, however, then the
which a document qualifies for work product protection only if “the primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the document was to aid in