Your Good Name

Liars ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 89-105
Author(s):  
Cass R. Sunstein
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Breathing Space ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
Do So

Can people protect their reputations? What if someone is circulating vicious lies about them? The US Supreme Court has given broad protection to libelous statements, saying that it must do so in order to allow “breathing space” for free speech. That idea is a cornerstone of the law of free speech. But in the modern era, and in light of the potentially devastating effects of falsehoods on individual lives and democracy itself, constitutional law should be updated. People should be allowed to demand retractions when they have been libeled, and they should also be able to obtain at least a modest amount of compensation. Much more needs to be done to allow people to protect their good name.

scholarly journals The Application of Legal Maxim “King Can Do No Wrong” In the Constitutional Law of UK & USA: An Analytical Study

2020 ◽  
Vol V (II) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Salman Farooq ◽  
Musab Yousufi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Analytical Study ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Full Force ◽  
The Uk

The legal maxim “King can do no wrong” was in full force in the English constitutional law ever since the emergence of British Empire. The doctrine provided absolute immunity to the Crown. The king started losing his absolute prerogatives, in centuries long battle for power among the Crown and lord businessmen, which eventually resulted in the concept of liable government in the UK in the shape of the crown proceedings act 1947. On the contrary the US constitutional law is silent about the presidential immunity, following the maxim “no one, even the government is above the law”. However, the US Supreme Court is expanding the application of this doctrine by granting the immunity to the president in cases where his act falls within the constitutionally assigned duties along with negating it in cases where the act of president falls outside the outer perimeters of his constitutionally assigned duties.

scholarly journals All of Life an Experiment

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-39
Author(s):  
Jared Harpt
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
World War ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
Oliver Wendell Holmes ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Clear And Present Danger ◽  
Do So

US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. reshaped American free speech law through his Supreme Court opinions during World War I and after. This paper explores the oft-debated questions of whether and how Holmes’s free speech views changed between his legal education (during which he was taught that the common law’s bad tendency test allowed governments to punish any speech after it was uttered) and World War I (during which he created and developed the more expansive clear and present danger test). This paper argues that Holmes developed the underlying principles of his later free speech ideas in his writings on American common law, but that he only expressed those ideas in Supreme Court opinions after several other legal thinkers prodded him to do so.

The Use and Abuse of Definitions in Constitutional Law

ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Walen
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Meaning

AbstractJustice Roberts′s dissent in Obergefell v Hodges - the case in which the US Supreme Court found a constitutional right for same sex couples to marry - rested on the premise the Court cannot invoke the right to marry as a basis for changing the definition of marriage. But his argument works only if the Court has no obligation to find a constitutional meaning for the term. I argue here that it has such an obligation. I argue further that an analogy with the concept of ‘person’ throws light on how that obligation should work. And finally, I argue that the most plausible constitutional definition would include same sex couples.

scholarly journals Towards a New Justificatory Theory of Comparative Constitutional Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-117
Author(s):  
Santiago Legarre
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law

This paper tries to explain what comparative constitutional law is and takes the US legal practice as an example. The presence of comparative analysis is considered both in the academic arena and in the case law of the US Supreme Court. The conclusion of this part of the article is that for comparative constitutional law to be valid its role ought to be restricted by several constraints. The article also suggests that the comparative enterprise only makes sense if the universality of human rights is first acknowledged. The paper next delves into such universality and connects it with notions of new classical natural law that are considered essential in order to adequately understand the problem. Finally, it provides an example of the misuse of comparative constitutionalism.

scholarly journals Review of a Monograf by V.N. Safonov «Constitutional Law-Making in the US Suprime Court Activity. Historical-Legal Reaserch». Moscow: Prospect Publ., 2018

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-408
Author(s):  
Marina V Nemytina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Theoretical Context ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
General Line ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Law Making

The monograph observes the problems of the US Supreme Court law-making activity in sphere of interpreting the federal Constitution. Tendencies of the American constitutional, common and precedent law development are shown in historical and theoretical context. The author studies legal determinations of the US Supreme Court Judges and judicial doctrines basing on them. He also reveals the correlation between the judicial conservatism and activism within the general line of the US legal policy and ideology.

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

Religious Neutrality and the Government’s Freedom of Speech in the Jurisprudence of the us Supreme Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
András Koltay
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The State ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Religious Symbols ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Hard Cases

The issue of the use of religious symbols by the State, the Government, the Municipalities and Courts has emerged as a practical constitutional problem during the last quarter of a century. Contradictory examples of us Supreme Court jurisprudence prove that this issue is among the constitutional ‘hard cases’. The relatively recent appearance of the problem clearly indicates the ways in which American social conditions have changed and the transformation of us society’s attitude to religion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document