scholarly journals The Supreme Courts Decision On The Affordable Care Act: Abrogating Article III Of The Constitution

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
Martin D. Carrigan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
The United States ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Katherine Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Case No. 11393, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed most of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). In holding the ACA as valid (constitutional), Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the taxing power in the U.S. Constitution was the reason that the law was enforceable. Although a strong dissent on such reasoning was written by four other Justices, Roberts also wrote that laws are entrusted to our nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. [1]Roberts also wrote that the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution did not give Congress authority to pass the ACA. Moreover, Congress could not impose unfunded mandates on the States to expand Medicaid. In so writing, Roberts disposed of the chief arguments of those in favor of the law and provided a bone to those who opposed it. But, by then holding that Congress taxing power was sufficient to uphold the law, Roberts ignored the Federal Anti-Injunction statute and called into question the ability of the Supreme Court to hold a law passed by Congress entirely unconstitutional. By writing that, in effect, the Court should defer to Acts of Congress, Roberts attempted a finesse first exercised by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. While it may seem as if he intended to demonstrate the same legal adroitness of Marbury, instead he deferred to the wishes of Congress, going through legal gymnastics to uphold a law that many scholars saw as indefensible, and damaged the power of the Supreme Court given to it in Article III immeasurably.

scholarly journals Revitalizing The U.S. Compliance Power

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Charnovitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

Although “[tjreaties are the law of the land, and a rule of decision in all courts,” the president and the courts may sometimes be powerless to achieve compliance with a U.S. treaty. That was the puzzling outcome of Medellin v. Texas. Even though the Supreme Court declared that the United States has an international obligation to comply with the Avena judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court invalidated the president’s memorandum directing Texas and other errant states to comply.

scholarly journals Patterson v. McLean: A Confirmation of the New Right at the U.S. Supreme Court

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 987-1009
Author(s):  
George M. Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Elections ◽  
Presidential Appointments ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S

In two consecutive national elections a conservative, Ronald Reagan, was elected President of the United States. When Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement during the late months of the Reagan administration, it was apparent that the President's last appointment could shift the ideology of the Court to conservatism for the first time since the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. President Reagan's prior appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, had joined William Rehnquist, an appointee of President Nixon and Bryon White, an appointee of President Kennedy to comprise a vociferous minority of four in many instances, especially cases involving civil rights. The unexpected opportunity for the appointment of a conservative jurist caused great anxiety in the media and in the U.S. Senate, the later having confirmation power over presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. This article examines the consequences of the Senate's confirmation of Justice Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. The impact, which was immediate and dramatic, indicates that conservative ideology will predominate on major civil rights issues for the remainder of this century.

scholarly journals THE NON-RECOGNITION OF ISLAMIC MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John McDermott
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spousal Abuse ◽  
Muslim Country ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Polygamous Marriage ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Islamic Marriage ◽  
The U.S

The general rule regarding the validity of foreign marriages followed by most US courts is that a marriage if validly performed is valid everywhere. But there are exceptions based on public policy. Thus, while a non-incestuous, monogamous marriage performed in a Muslim country between consenting adults would be recognized in the United States, a polygamous marriage most likely will not. Bigamy is a crime in all states, although the husband is rarely prosecuted unless there are other factors, e.g., spousal abuse or fraud. The U.S. Constitution’s protection of an individual’s religious rights might be asserted as a basis for allowing Muslim men to have more than one wife but it seems unlikely to succeed as the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in a case involving a Mormon man who had several wives as permitted by his religion. However, several state supreme courts have recently held that a State cannot constitutionally ban same sex marriages; this article explores the possibility that similar bans on polygamous marriage might be held to be unconstitutional. The article also explores the difficulties encountered in attempting to have a US court give effect to a Ṭalāq divorce, especially where the Ṭalāq is not confirmed by a court or other judicial body.

The Pakistan Federal Shariat Court, Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, and the Orphaned Grandchild

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Personal Law ◽  
Law Of Succession ◽  
Muslim Family

AbstractSection 4 of the Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, dramatically altered the law of succession applicable to Muslims by granting to the orphaned grandchild(ren) the share that their deceased parent would have taken had s/he survived the propositus. The principle of representation incorporated in the Pakistani solution contrasts with the compulsory bequest relied upon by several Middle Eastern countries to deal with the same problem, although arguably representation more closely reflects the experience and expectations of the people of Pakistan. Nearly two decades later, the Federal Shariat Court was established and endowed with jurisdiction to declare a law contrary to "the Injunctions of Islam" and thus void. Some laws, however, were specifically exempted from the Court's jurisdiction; falling within this category is "Muslim Personal Law." A 1981 decision of the appellate Court (the Shariat Bench of the Supreme Court) held that the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance were included within the phrase "Muslim Personal Law," and were thus outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. This position was reversed by another decision of the appellate Court in 1993, and the provisions of the Ordinance were immediately challenged on the basis of their alleged divergence from the "Injunctions of Islam." This essay reviews the provisions of section 4 of the Ordinance and examines the decision of the Shariat Court as regards this particular provision.

The Company They Keep

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Baum ◽  
Neal Devins
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Dominant Ideology ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The U.S

Today’s ideological division on the U.S. Supreme Court is also a partisan division: all the Court’s liberals were appointed by Democratic presidents, all its conservatives by Republican presidents. That pattern never existed in the Court until 2010, and this book focuses on how it came about and why it’s likely to continue. Its explanation lies in the growing level of political polarization over the last several decades. One effect of polarization is that potential nominees will reflect the dominant ideology of the president’s political party. Correspondingly, the sharpened ideological division between the two political parties has given presidents stronger incentives to give high priority to ideological considerations. In addition to these well-known effects of polarization, The Company They Keep explores what social psychologists have taught us about people’s motivations. Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological elites, and justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live in milieus populated by like-minded elites that reinforce their liberalism or conservatism during their tenure on the Supreme Court. By highlighting and documenting this development, the book provides a new perspective on the Court and its justices.

美國生物科技新專利適格性原則之研究

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (21) ◽  
pp. 97-160
Author(s):  
李順典 李順典
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Natural Phenomena ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
Global Strategies ◽  
The U.S

鑑於美國最高法院重新激活了專利適格性標的要件，其認為涉及發明的自然法則、自然現象或抽象概念，除非它們也包含「發明的概念」，否則不具專利適格性，因而引發了巨大爭議。因為新專利適格性原則不當削弱了美國在創新中的領導地位，而且它們已經給美國專利制度注入了巨大的法律不確定性，所以美國應重新思考生物技術產業創新的激勵措施生物技術公司的專利適格性在不同的國家面臨不斷的改變，故必須發展保護生物技術創新的全球策略，可行的發展策略應是根據國家的法律標準申請專利。In view of the United States Supreme Court has reinvigorated the patent-eligible subject matter requirement, holding that inventions directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas are not eligible for patenting unless they also contain an ''inventive concept.'' As a result, the Supreme Court has sparked tremendous controversy. Since the new patent eligibility doctrine is undermining U.S. leadership in innovation, so the U.S. shall reconsider the incentives for innovation in the biotechnologyindustry. Biotech companies facing constant changes in patent eligibility in different countries have to develop global strategies for protecting biotechnology innovations, and a recommended strategy is to file patent applications tailored to the legal standards of the countries of interest.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Habeas Case Brought by Guantánamo Bay Detainee Challenging His Continuing Detention

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-855
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Past Time ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
September 11 Attacks ◽  
The U.S

On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case in which the D.C. Circuit held that the United States could continue to detain an individual at Guantánamo Bay until the cessation of the hostilities that justified his initial detention, notwithstanding the extraordinary length of the hostilities to date. The case, Al-Alwi v. Trump, arises from petitioner Moath Hamza Ahmed Al-Alwi's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his continued detention at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was accompanied by a statement by Justice Breyer observing that “it is past time to confront the difficult question” of how long a detention grounded in the U.S. response to the September 11 attacks can be justified.

APPLICATION THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL STATE

10.12737/903 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-81
Author(s):  
Владимир Сафонов ◽  
Vladimir Safonov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social State ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

The article reveals the problem of applying the principle of the social state in the practice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Justiciability of Paraguay’s Claim of Treaty Violation

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 697-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Fisler Damrosch
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Government’s position asserting nonjusticiability of the treaty claims raised by Paraguay in the domestic and international lawsuits is disturbing. The Government’s amicus filings at the court of appeals and the Supreme Court denied that Paraguay’s claims belonged in federal court (or indeed in any court at all); at die International Court of Justice, the United States admitted a treaty violation but denied the competence of that tribunal to enter a judicial remedy. At one or another phase of these proceedings, the U.S. Government pressed a variety of arguments that (if accepted) would rule out virtually any judicial consideration of a treaty-based claim. The haste with which the Supreme Court denied a stay in Breard’s case foreclosed adequate consideration of the justiciability of such claims in domestic courts and also effectively barred Paraguay from achieving the relief it sought on the international plane.

The Relations Between the United States and Porto Rico Part II

1916 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-327
Author(s):  
Pedro Capó-Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unanimous Opinion ◽  
Satisfactory Solution ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Difference Of Opinion

In approaching the discussion of the effects of the acquisition of Porto Rico as a result of the Treaty of Paris of 1899, we are confronted by one of the most difficult problems arising in the consideration of the relations between the United States and Porto Rico. The difficulty is due in a great measure to the absence of a positive, unequivocal and unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in the decision of the so-called Insular Cases, which have given rise to so much doubt, uncertainty and difference of opinion among lawyers in regard to this vital subject.If the acquisition of Porto Rico had been the only one made by the United States at that time, the problem would have been comparatively easy. It would have been enough, perhaps, to turn to the earlier precedents laid down by the Supreme Court to find sufficient guiding light and ample authority to arrive at a satisfactory solution. Congress itself, probably, would have rendered it unnecessary to appeal to the Supreme Court by doing complete justice to the people who had received the United States with such sincere demonstrations of rejoicing, friendship and affection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document