Evidence and Its Proof. Designing a Test of Evidence
In: Forum Prawnicze, 2019
193154 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Forum Prawnicze, 2019
SSRN
In: Revista de Derecho Privado, N° 36 Enero – Junio 2019
SSRN
In: The New Orleans Prosperity Index: Tricentennial Edition, March 2018
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
In: A Report to The International Round Table on Teaching Comparative Jurisprudence (Irpin/Kyiv/Ukraine, January 18, 2013)
SSRN
Working paper
In: BizEd July / August 2013, AACSB International, pp. 58-59
SSRN
In: Die Verwaltung: Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaften, Band 46, Heft 3, S. 155-182
ISSN: 0042-4498
In: [2012] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 307-326
SSRN
In: Uluslararasi Hukuk ve Politika, Band 5, Heft 20, S. 1-31
In: Parlement(s): revue d'histoire politique, Heft 1, S. 105-116
ISSN: 1962-3968, 1768-6520
With one exception, the provisions of the United States Constitution, including its amendments, apply to branches, departments, agencies, and officials of government and not to private individuals, groups, or organizations. (The exception is the Thirteenth Amendment, which simply outlaws slavery in the United States and its territories.) The primary, if not sole, purpose of any constitution is to create, organize, empower, and limit a government, and to the extent that private persons/groups/organizations need to be aided or controlled, a government, once formed by a constitution, can do that through statutes and other kinds of civil laws. If, moreover, the provisions in the U.S. Constitution that restrict the government were interpreted as applying to private entities, that would give the courts in the United States a significant amount of power over private individuals, groups, and organizations, because the courts are responsible for enforcing the Constitution. To limit its own power, among other reasons, the Supreme Court has enunciated the State Action Doctrine, which says that the Constitution, except for the Thirteenth Amendment, applies only to government and not to private entities.
BASE
In: Lateinamerika-Analysen, Heft 9, S. 181-194
ISSN: 1619-1684
In this Article, Professor George D. Brown explores the role of the Office of Independent Counsel and the current ethics backlash surrounding its reauthorization. He examines the historical development of the institution through the accounts of two previous "special prosecutors," Archibald Cox and Lawrence Walsh. Professor Brown also explores the arguments of critics who call for the institution's abolition and counters with his own call for change and renewal. As an alternative to renewal, he suggests a short-term extension, a "cooling off' period to permit Congress to take a detached look at the independent counsel. Professor Brown observes that the current reauthorization debate arises in the midst of a counterrevolution in government ethics. Despite this ethics backlash, he suggests that the statute be modified without severely altering the role of the independent counsel. Professor Brown continues by examining current proposals to revise the Office of Independent Counsel, which include: limiting the covered crimes; reducing the number of covered persons; modifying the role of the attorney general; specifying the qualifications of the independent counsel; limiting the cost and duration of investigations; changing the manner in which the independent counsel reports its findings to Congress and the judiciary; and limiting expansion of its jurisdiction. Professor Brown concludes, however, that whatever the fate of the offered revisions, it is essential that the Office of Independent Counsel remain "independent."
BASE
A bill proposal from House of Representatives members Barbara Charline Jordan, a Texas Democrat, and James Burke, a Massachusetts Democrat.
BASE
In: Human rights law journal: HRLJ, Band 16, S. 326-344
ISSN: 0174-4704
With special attention to the basic legal standards of the Council of Europe; covers the Constitution, fundamental rights, and protection of minorities.