Answers for your legal questions

Who has the final authority for interpreting constitution? law answers (58777)

People haved asked the following law querstions similar to "who has the final authority for interpreting constitution?". If you have other legal doubts, use the box above to get answers.

Q: 

Why aren't entitlements un-constitutional?

A:  It all depends on how you interpret the wording. The first Federal "welfare" programs ever passed were farm support programs, under which the Federal Gov't agreed to underwrite the cost of mandatory crop insurance programs, thus spreading the risk of crop failures across wide numbers. These programs were challenged in court, and the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress was authorized by the constitution only to spend money for the "common welfare", not for the welfare of a specific group - in this case farmers. That was the end of Federal welfare until the "New Deal". When it became obvious that the Supreme Court was going to rule most of FDR's new deal...

Q: 

The constitution, Original Intent and Social Programs

A:  Preamble We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America. If you can drive one camel through "promote the general Welfare. . . ", you can drive a herd. Now, I suspect the original intent was to create post offices and maybe maintain interstate waterways, but there''s the justification. Madison would be shocked at what we''ve done with it. Roger - I know that people have twisted that to justify what they want, but I also know that the founders expressly stated that this was not...

Q: 

Should 0bama be charged with treason for not defending the United States constitution?

A:  To be entirely fair, we could charge most elected officials that have been in Washington DC for the last 3 or 4 decades with various constitutional breaches. Several cabinet departments are not authorized by the constitution, and therefore banned by the 10th amendment. I prefer REPLACING them with people that will start repealing large portions of Federal law than attempting to put them all in prison. Flower: It IS up to the President, as head of the Executive branch of the government, to ENFORCE existing Federal law. Illegal immigration, by definition, violates existing law. Hence the term ILLEGAL. Now now now, be fair. As a responsible republican, lets not single...

Q: 

What constitutes excessive force and what actions are acceptable for police officers to exhibit?

A:  1. If they are charged with burglary, the prosecutor must prove that they broke in and entered into something like a building, car, boat, or trailer with the intent to commit a crime. The crime of larceny involves the wrongful taking of the personal property of another with the intent to deprive the owner of the property. Trespass is entering another person''s property without permission of the owner or legal authority. 2. The constitutional right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty does not apply to an arrest situation. An officer must only have probable cause in order to make an arrest. 3. In assessing whether the use of force, deadly or not, was excessive, the Supreme Court has held that the proper test is one of ''objective...

Q: 

Sentencing Standards No Longer Mandatory

A:  Interesting stuff-thanks panzade wrote:Interesting stuff-thanks Welcome-it jumped out at me, so I definitely agree about it being interesting! Gotta love that Breyer (makes great ice cream, too :wink: ). I gotta know more about Breyer...where he came from... panzade wrote:I gotta know more about Breyer...where he came from... Here''s a good start: Biography of Supreme Court Justice Steven G. Breyer Thanks, I was impressed with this speech...lengthy cut and paste, but interesting. The Supreme Court And The New International law Stephen Breyer Associate Justice Supreme Court of the United States The American Society of International law 97th Annual Meeting Omni Shoreham Hotel Washington, D.C. April 4, 2003 "Nearly a century ago...

Q: 

Does the 14th Amendment require citizenship for anchor babies?

A:  No. Apparently your liberal interpreters are not sure what to do with the word 'and.' "All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof." "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means a legal resident here and not somewhere else. According to University of Texas legal scholar Lino Graglia, the second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else." To discern the authentic meaning of this amendment as originally intended by its framers, we must first start with its plain language, and then further examine the context under which it was proposed and passed. Any debate...

Q: 

What is the difference between the Maine government and the United States government?

A:  Answer The difference between Maine government and US government is that Maine government is for the state of Maine it has separate laws coinciding with the constitution which is the US government, which constitutes the basis of where the government of Maine originated their laws with clauses added or amendments. Just think states & Governments. U.S. Governments (overall) over rule States (individual)governments when state laws become questioned they go to the Us government for final decisions or interpretation of the law. Answer There is no difference....

Q: 

What is Judicial Restraint?

A:  Judicial restraint is a philosophy that upholds the tenets of democracy by meeting a responsibility to limit power in deference to policy governed by constitutional law. In short, judges who exercise judicial restraint do so to adhere to the specific language of the constitution when ruling. However, if meaning in a particular area is unclear, a restrained judge may attempt to interpret the spirit of the law as the authors of the constitution intended. One of the primary goals of judicial restraint is to preserve the balance between the three branches of government--judicial, legislative, and executive. To that end, judges who model restraint engage in

Q: 

Is a decision in one Circuit binding on another Circuit?

A:  Answer No. What you''re describing is called a ''Circuit Split,'' where two or more US Courts of Appeal disagree on the interpretation of federal or constitutional law. The Ninth Circuit has an addition problem in that the Ninth is so large it typically has two 11-judge panels reviewing different cases at the same time. This can result in what''s known as an Intra-Circuit Split. The Supreme Court''s goal is consistent understanding and rulings among the lower courts, so if the Ninth Circuit makes one decision and the Fourth Circuit makes a different decision on a substantially similar matter, the US Supreme Court may review the cases and make a final determination. Whatever interpretation the Supreme Court applies...

Q: 

In a country of laws why does one state have laws that oppose another?

A:  The individual states, or commonwealths are parties to the constitution of the United States of America. One of the provisions recognized that each entity was the final authority of all matters within the entity to which were not directly agreed were matters of federal importance, and directed to the federal government; certain matters were by strong implication matters for federal government regulation and control, such as movement of cattle over state lines, action of governmental departments to control pest infestations in nearby areas caused by the animal movement: interstate commerce; all other matters were ''reserved'' to the people. States or commonwealths have more or less exclusive control over land...