Procedural due process applies to any governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or property. What process did the government follow for figuring out that the tax applied?
A court should consider how the government determine the pollution level of Mr. Taxpayer's car
A court should consider whether the benefits of the 100-unit pollution limit outweigh the costs.
Procedural due process does not apply to local taxes.
Procedural due process does not apply to taxes.
Was there adequate process for figuring out if she violated the law?
Her procedural due process claim will fail if the governmental interest in restricting speech outweighs the individual liberty interest.
Her procedural due process claim will fail because the court proceedings provide adequate process for deciding her free-speech claim.
Her procedural due process claim will fail if the school used adequate procedure when firing her.
Her procedural due process claim will fail because public employment is privilege, not a right.
It was legally valid and binding in all respects.
It was legally valid as to Mr. Scott's lawsuit, but the President could still choose to recognize black citizenship in other instances.
It was legally invalid and non-binding in all respects.
Cooper v. Aaron is a judicial supremacy case.
"The federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution"
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
"Each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the constitution."
States were segregating individual students on the basis of race.
The constitutionality of state-mandated segregation in railroad cars.
The constitutionality of federally mandated segregation in railroad cars.
The constitutionality of state-mandated segregation in public schools.
The constitutionality of federally mandated segregation in public schools.
Injury, causation, and redressability are the three prongs of standing.
Injury in fact (i.e., a concrete, particularized injury)
Redressability (i.e.d, the court can order something that helps fix or remedy the injury)
Cause of action (i.e., the plaintiff has a legal basis to sue)
Causation (i.e., the defendant caused the injury)
A plaintiff usually cannot assert another person's legal rights.
A plaintiff usually cannot assert rights derived from state law.
A plaintiff usually cannot assert rights that aren't derived from the Constitution.
Federal standing rules are about Article III courts hearing cases and controversies.
It depends on the circumstances
Both the government and Mrs. Windsor agreed that DOMA was unconstitutional and that Mrs. Windsor should win.
The government lacked an "injury in fact."
The government refused to file an appeal.
The government and Mrs. Windsor agreed about the law and the proper outcome.
Mrs. Windsor lacked an "injury in fact."
There wasn't jurisdiction.
There was jurisdiction.
The Court remanded the case for further fact finding.
Chadha was discussed in Justice Alito's separate opinion - In Chadha there was a similar situation where the executive branch and Chadha thought the line-item veto was unconstitutional and so they agreed. The House stepped in to defend the law.
City of New York (line-item veto)
Myers (removal power)
Chadha (legislative veto)
Thornton (term limits)
What we are asking with standing law is: is this the right person to be bringing this claim? Is the sort of claim that ought to be heard in federal court? Here we have a generalized injury, he would likely not have standing.
A worker at Lou's Cafe who seeks an injunction to remove public monuments on Monument Ave (no injury-in-fact)
The owner of Lou's Cafe who is challenging a bad health department rating (no injury-in-fact)
A customer who sues Lou's Cafe for giving her food poisoning but without any proof (no causation)
A fully recovered customer sues Lou's Cafe for damages based on an earlier slip-and-fall injury (no injury-in-fact)
We just look to whether the Senate has convicted following a valid impeachment, we don't look at the procedures the Senate used in the conviction process.
The Supreme Court *can* review a Senate conviction (following impeachment ) but only for procedural errors.
The Supreme Court *cannot* review a Senate conviction (following impeachment) because that decision in solely vested in the Senate.
The Supreme Court *cannot* review a Senate conviction (following impeachment) because there is no standing.
The Supreme Court *can* review a Senate conviction (following impeachment) for any claim in which there is standing.
The question isn't about who is better at deciding a certain issue - it has to be stronger than that to be a political question. It has to be that the Constitution itself gives the decision making power to the other branch or that the judiciary just is incapable of deciding.
A question that doesn't have a clear answer.
A question best decided by the political branches.
A question or decision that the Constitution vests solely in the political branches.
A case that has major political implications.
Mootness is about whether the suit should be dismissed because the problem has gone away, ripeness is about whether the suit should be dismissed because the injury hasn't matured yet, and standing is partly about the timing (imminent injury). Adversity isn't about timing as it is what the parties think about each others legal position.
너는 정확하게 대답했다.
당신이 잘못 대답했습니다.
너는 시간이 없어.
점수 또는 평점을 저장하려면 로그인하거나 등록해야합니다.
텍스트에 적합한 오디오 언어를 설정하십시오.
단어를 강조 표시하여 학습을 향상시킵니다.
로그인 할 필요없이 퀴즈, 코스 및 플래시 카드를 재생할 수 있습니다. 그러나 점수를 저장하고 퀴즈, 코스 및 플래시 카드를 만들려면 로그인해야합니다. 오디오를 재생하려면 전문 계정에 로그인해야합니다.
학습을 한 차원 높여보십시오. 프로페셔널 계정으로 업그레이드하면 질문을 큰소리로 듣고 다른 많은 혜택을 누릴 수 있습니다.
귀하가 작성한 질문이나 답변에 대한 오디오가 생성됩니다.
많은 사람들이 그들이 배운 것을 듣고 더 잘 배웁니다. 외국어 학습을 위해 우리는 18 개 이상의 언어를 지원했습니다.
지원 언어로는 덴마크어, 네덜란드어, 영어, 프랑스어, 독일어, 아이슬란드 어, 이탈리아어, 일본어, 한국어, 노르웨이어, 폴란드어, 포르투갈어, 루마니아어, 러시아어, 스페인어, 스웨덴어, 터키어, 웨일스 어 등이 있습니다.
또한 단어를 소리내어 읽음으로써 자동 단어 단위 강조 기능을 지원합니다.
Apple App Store에서 볼 Topgrade 응용 프로그램을 선택하십시오.
Google Play에서 볼 수있는 Topgrade 앱을 선택합니다.