Answers for your legal questions

Why is the constitution still relevant? law answers (20413)

People haved asked the following law querstions similar to "why is the constitution still relevant?". If you have other legal doubts, use the box above to get answers.

Q: 

law

A:  These appear to be homework questions and frankly this site is not set up for that. Your answers are available here: http://www.canada.gc.ca/main_e.html May I suggest that in the future you use a Search Engine and not a site of volunteers that are trying to help people with real issues....

Q: 

When buying a service in the UK, is there any legal period for changing one''s mind without having to pay the fees ?

A:  Dear Sandrine If you have ordered these services via the Internet then you may be able to cancel the agreement simply because you have changed your mind under the cooling off period in the Distant Selling Directive as implemented under English law. However there are exceptions for services which are instantly ordered and used, or cusotmised services. If the services were purchased not via the Internet (or distantly) then the clause will be binding if it reasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Which particular rules of that Act which apply will depend upon whether you are a business customer or a consumer. I sugggest that you have an English lawyer look at the contract to give a view on this. Kind regards, Irene Bodle posted 1...

Q: 

Why do people quote the constitution?

A:  elastic clause my good friend. the elastic clause. It represents the laws of our land.Throw it out as you suggest and there will be no America. Is the constitution perfect - NO. It is better than anything else I''ve seen. The 14th adment has been expanded by a court ruling. If any state would make a law challenging that interpretation the Surpreme Court would have to revisit the ruling. Maybe they should have pushed Prop 187 harder. As for your refferance to muskets, Check out the # of weapons per capida that Switzerland has & their crime rate. Maybe you will stop preaching gun control & start preaching gun ownership! I''m not sure if you just emerged from your cave or just havn;t heard of "

Q: 

The constitutional Basis For The "Enemy Combatant" Designation?

A:  Alfred Einstead wrote: The key section that pertains to this matter is the 2nd paragraphof Section 9 of Article I:"The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety mayrequire it."... the theory underlying the currentadministration''s use of "enemy combatant" ... Is not based on Section 9, Article I. Rather the US constitution suspends the application of most civil rights to members of the US armed forces. The US Supreme Court has argued it would be unfair to afford enemy combatants more rights than US combatants, hence has ruled several times that Habeas Corpus and other civil rights are never available to members of US or foreign armed forces. However,

Q: 

Is there any legitimate reason the constitution is refered to as a ''Living Document'' other than the belief it''s outdated

A:  A living Document is like a Living Religion...

Q: 

What is Voidism of the constitution?

A:  If the constitution does not speak clearly, then it does not speak at all & democratic majority should decide it (court stands aside). -    hard to differentiate b/w when the it is silent & when it has been denied. -    Risks minimizing judiciary’s function to the point that constitutional guarantees themselves become marginally relevant -    Under the guise of judicial restraint, the court may realign & redistribute rights (i.e. Establishment clause’s meaning is indeterminate so voidism would just strike it out)....

Q: 

What are the constitutional Obligations?

A:  constitutional Obligations constitution plays limited role on discovery area, since it is usually an informal procedure. Brady – P cannot suppress evidence favorable to the accused that the D has asked for; violates DP; called “Brady Material”…P must turn over exculpatory evidence where material Bagley – information withheld to impeach a government witness held disclosure required only if material to either guilt or punishment and this not material set aside if reasonable likelihood affected jury (Napue test … low standard) test for materiality:  reasonable probability had evidence been disclosed to D, result of proceeding would have been different hung jury concept… no unanimous jury to convict Very low standard of materiality …. Court...

Q: 

The constitution was ratified over 200 years ago, how can it still be an effective governing document today?

A:  Because we''re constantly amending it. The difference between right and wrong hasn''t changed since the beginning of time. New things do come up, and that''s why laws and amendments are added to the original constitution. It keeps the original constitution relevant to today''s society. The fact that 200 years later you guys are still following it. If I were you, I''d be glad to have one. Here in sunny old England we answer to the Europeans. If the politicians of today had the brains that the framers of the constitution had, it would work......... RIGHT ON BILL AND CAREY S. The sad part is that most adults today never read it, they might talk about it, but they never...

Q: 

Doesn't the draft violate the U.S. constitution?

A:  is it really relevant to argue when there isn''t a draft in effect? Evidently you weren''t paying attention "in school", you need to reread what the amendments actually SAY.....even regular "slavery" is ''constitutional'' punishment as a duly legislated sentence for a crime of which the Court have deemed you guilty.... it is not a form of involuntary servitude because you can claim to be a conscientious objector and be exempt from the draft. The US Supreme Court says no, but that does not mean you have to agree with it. There are contradictions in the law all of the time, you just have to live with it. Furthermore, words in the constitution should not be read in...

Q: 

In Article 1, Section 8, the constitution lists many powers of Congress.  Are there powers that should be taken away from Congress?  If so, why? 

A:  I do not think there are any powers given to Congress that need to be taken away.  I think there are some that are no longer relevant, but not really any that still matter but which Congress should not have. The most obvious power that Congress does not really need anymore is the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal.  We no longer need privateers.  Of the others, what would we take away?  We can''t take away the power to tax, we can''t take away the power to borrow money, or to make laws about bankruptcies.  All of these are areas in which we need Congress to be able to act. Congress, as the legislative governmental branch, is granted specific and broad powers in the constitution.  The Founders made these...