Letters and legal opinion, 1798-1823

Legal opinion on an equity case (1798). Four letters to an unnamed correspondent (1801) regarding a shipment of papers; Joseph Hopkinson, member of Congress (1817) regarding a judiciary bill; a note (1818) to the cashier of the Bank of Columbia; and to Charles T. Mercer (1823) regarding property in Loudoun County, Virginia. Folder also contains newspaper clippings (ca. 1830-1842) regarding Washington's life and career, including one taken from the Journal of Law.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.

Teach about the Bill of Rights and beyond : a study guide for elementary & junior high schools.

Shipping list no.: 91-490-P.

Plant a living legacy.

Mode of access: Internet.

National History Day 1991 : rights in history.

Mode of access: Internet.

"Unfair'' Restaurant Reviews:To Sue Or Not To Sue

In their discussion entitled - “Unfair” Restaurant Reviews: To Sue Or Not To Sue - by John Schroeder and Bruce Lazarus, Assistant Professors, Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management at Purdue University, the authors initially state: “Both advantages and disadvantages exist on bringing lawsuits against restaurant critics who write “unfair” reviews. The authors, both of whom have experience with restaurant criticism, offer practical advice on what realistically can be done by the restaurateur outside of the courtroom to combat unfair criticism.” Well, this is going to be a sticky wicket no matter how you try to defend it, reviews being what they are; very subjective pieces of opinionated journalism, especially in the food industry. And, of course, unless you can prove malicious intent there really is no a basis for a libel suit. So, a restaurateur is at the mercy of written opinion and the press. “Libel is the written or published form of slander which is the statement of false remarks that may damage the reputation of others. It also includes any false and malicious publication which may damage a person's business, trade, or employment,” is the defined form of the law provided by the authors. Anecdotally, Schroeder and Lazarus offer a few of the more scathing pieces reviewers have written about particular eating establishments. And, yes, they can be a bit comical, unless you are the owner of an establishment that appears in the crosshairs of such a reviewer. A bad review can kneecap even a popular eatery. “Because of the large readership of restaurant reviews in the publication (consumer dining out habits indicate that nearly 50 percent of consumers read a review before visiting a new restaurant) your business begins a very dangerous downward tailspin,” the authors reveal, with attribution. “Many restaurant operators contend that a bad review can cost them an immediate trade loss of upward of 50 percent,” Schroeder and Lazarus warn. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant owner can collect damages only if he proves that the statement or statements were made with “actual malice,” even if the statements were untrue,” the authors say by way of citation. And that last portion of the statement cannot be over-emphasized. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does wield a heavy hammer, indeed, and it should. So, what recourse does a restaurateur have? The authors cautiously give a guarded thumbs-up to a lawsuit, but you better be prepared to prove a misstatement of fact, as opposed to the distinguishable press protected right of opinion. For the restaurateur the pitfalls are many, the rewards few and far between, Schroeder and Lazarus will have you know. “…after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a lawsuit against a critic...the disadvantages are overwhelming,” the authors say. “Chicago restaurant critic James Ward said that someone dumped a load of manure on his yard accompanied by a note that read - Stop writing that s--t! - after he wrote a review of a local restaurant.” Such is a novel if not legally measurable tack against an un-mutual review.

Military laws of the united states; including those relatingto the Marine Corps, to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United StatesComplied by Colonel Trueman Corss, U.S. Army

UANL

Constitution of the U.S., Jefferson's Manual, the Rules of the House of Representatives and a Digest and Manual of the Rules and Practice of the House of Representatives

Mode of access: Internet.

La Pologne contemporaine : aperçu sommaire de la géographie de la constitution et de l'économie de l'état polonais.

Mode of access: Internet.

Laws of the State of Maine, volumes 1 and 2 : with the constitution of the U. States and of said state, prefixed : also, notes and references, delineating the additions and modifications thereof, which have been enacted ... from 1821 to 1834 : to which are appended ... a full synopsis of the decisions relating thereto, contained in the 17 volumes of Massachusetts reports, 10 volumes Pickering's Reports, and 7 volumes of Greenleaf's Reports /

Includes index.

The officers' guide and farmers' manual, containing a comprehensive collection of judicial and business forms, adapted to the jurisprudence of Indiana, with an explanation of law phrases and techincal terms, both Latin and French; to which is prefixed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the U. States, and the Constitution of Indiana.

Mode of access: Internet.

The constitution and by-laws of the Independent Company of Cadets : with extracts from the laws of the U. States and the militia laws of Massachusetts : to which is prefixed an order of Lt. Colonel David Sears, with authority for the formation of a full battalion : accompanied by papers and documents relative to the Divisionary Corps of Independent Cadets.

Mode of access: Internet.

Speech of Mr. Storrs, on the proposition to amend the Constitution of the U. States, respecting the election of president & vice president. Delivered in the House of representatives Feb. 17, 1826.

Mode of access: Internet.

A biographical notice of Com. Jesse D. Elliott : containing a review of the controversy between him and the late Commodore Perry ; and a history of the figure-head of the U.S. frigate Constitution /

Yellow printed boards.