#constitutional-law

#constitutional-law

Founded in 1875, the Supreme Court of Canada has served as the highest court in the country, interpreting laws and the Constitution and shaping the legal framework that governs everyday life. Over 150 years, it has been at the center of landmark rulings from individual rights and freedoms to indigenous land claims. Its decisions reflect the evolving values and diversity of Canadian society.

In our final episode, it's time to talk about Neil Gorsuch and the future of SCOTUS. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team-Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern-to discuss Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.

"Allowing judges to be disciplined based on the perceived 'tone' or 'volume' of lawful speech promotes arbitrary enforcement, invites political interference in the judicial branch, and threatens to undermine the rule of law."

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the law, arguing it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing and violence, and that it violated the constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal government.

House Joint Memorial 17 is a formal legislative request for the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The measure argues that the decision establishing the constitutional right of same-sex couple to legally marry is "at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which the United States is established."

On the [government's] reading, the president would have had no need ever to seek the Senate's advice and consent for his [US attorney] appointments. Whenever there was a fair prospect of the Senate's rejecting his preferred nominee, the president could have appointed that individual unilaterally to serve ad infinitum. It is unthinkable that such an obvious means for the executive to expand its power would have been overlooked by Congress.

When the Framers conceived of the separation of powers, they never planned for, 'what if one branch doesn't want any powers?' The Senate voted to NOT have a vote on approving Iran strikes, creating constitutional uncertainty about how the system functions when branches decline to exercise their designated authorities and responsibilities.

Mr. President: this was not an inevitability. This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. The notion that a President can plunge the United States into a regional war in one of the most volatile places on earth - without even briefing Congress, much less securing its authorization - is irreconcilable with the text, structure, and history of the Constitution.

The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that because Hemani admitted to FBI agents that he used marijuana several times a week, he is a "persistent" drug user, thus rendering illegal the possession of the gun he bought legally and keeps securely in his home.

Article IV outlines the relationship between states and between states and the federal government. They add the 10th Amendment to the conversation, because that also talks about the states.

He can't legally do it, so, I don't think this survives first contact with the courts. If he passes this kind of executive order, I imagine within hours there will be people who have already developed their litigation strategy to counter it, because it's being broadcast by him and his team, or at least by this group in The Washington Post.

It is not fine, nor is it legal, Murphy wrote in his decision, adding that migrants could not be sent to an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country without any legal recourse. He added that due process—the right to receive fair legal proceedings—is an essential component of the US Constitution.