Search results for: "The" (4774 results)
the two decisions: they are, at their root, decisions that place their unbounded trust in the President when he asserts military necessity. One way of
Yale Law Journal From the Archives: The Legality of Homosexual Marriage On June 26, the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that
Congress’s expense. How do the US Attorneys’ Offices restore their damaged credibility with the public? New laws and policies designed to preserve the
chosen families, these Essays suggest ways that the law should evolve to match emerging family structures. Two debating Essays illustrate the clash
case before the Court, Obergefell v. Hodges, this Essay suggests that there is at least one important difference between the two: their position vis-à
long as they shall exist as a nation, and continue to occupy the country hereby assigned them.” Articles of Agreement with the Creeks, Feb. 14, 1833
the challenged practice, because they are “more likely than their Anglo peers to lack one of the forms of ID” required for voting; and (2) that they are
white, but their mother was reportedly “of African descent.” The jus sanguinis citizenship statute then in effect recognized as citizens foreign-born
yield to the then-former President’s theory. And thus, the doctrine of presidential criminal immunity was born. The Court’s approach exemplifies, on its
factory, suppose that the i-efficient rule is for victims of pollution to be compensated for half of the harm caused to them. These pollutees may then have