what do you call a lawyer that specializes in cases having to do with the U.S. Constitution?
482436
Constitutional Lawyer.
741490
See US Constitution:  Bill of Rights.\n\nAs written, not as perverted by activist justices.
904027
You dont need a lawyer to tell you what the Constitution says anymore than you need a priest to tell you what the Bible says.\n\nRead it for yourself. The wording is quite clear.
358827
Constitutional law is the study of foundational laws that govern the scope of powers and authority of various bodies in relation to the creation and execution of other laws by a government. A constitution binds a government or governments, limiting the contexts in which rules may be created, interpreted and force may be applied. Constitutions may reference various bodies, including organizations, associations, stateless peoples and nation-states.\n\nMost commonly constitutional law is the law of these foundational laws, customs, and constitution a conventions in regard to nation-states. Not all nation-states have constitutions, though all such states have a jus commune, or law of the land, that may consist of a variety of imperative and consensual rules, that may be customary law, oral law and written law that apply in the various jurisdictions of such state. Of those nation-states that do have constitutions, not all are considered strictly written constitutions, as the laws that govern such issues may not be consolidated into one single constitution document or instrument. The constitutional law may be the fact of interpreting a variety of text which may also be informed by history, custom and unwritten constitutional conventions . Compare, for example, the written Constitution of the United States with British constitutional law, which arises from multiple sources including Magna Carta, the common law, and other customary sources. In some countries, the constitution is known as the Basic Law.\n\nConstitutional laws may often be considered second order rulemaking or rules about making rules of exercise power. One of the key tasks of constitutions within this context is to indicate hierarchies and relationships of power. Thus, for example, in the case of a unitary state, the Constitution will vest ulitimate authority in one central administration and legislature, and judiciary, though there is often a delegation of power or authority to local or municipal authorities. Whereas when a constitution establishes a federal state, it will identify the several levels of government coexisting with exclusive or shared areas of jurisdiction over lawmaking, application and enforcement.
722055
Well the "Supereme Court of the United States" can declare any law of the legislature (i.e. Congress) and executive (i.e. The President) null and void, if it is against the constitution. This power of the Supereme Court is called "Judicial Review". A famous case in this connection is the case of "Marbury vs Madision".
783916
The constitution provides a legal foundation for our\nlaws and our cival discourse. Disputes and questions regarding\nall manner of civall and criminal conduct have a final\narbiture with the Supreme court and the federal and state courts.
1001450
The constitution is the basis for all law in the United States
549767
constitional ,federal, case law, state and common
849817
Ummmm....the US Constitution?
278466
To interpret the law and its constitutionality
299234
Ultimately, the Supreme Court, if it wants to take the case.\n\nA law thought unconstitutional is challenged in a suit in a lower court; after a decision is made there, the loser appeals to an Appellate Court, and then to the Supreme Court.
523017
First, be sure to break up the methodologies that are grouped into Originalists:\n\nOriginal Intent - The constitution should be interpreted by what the original authors meant.\n\nOriginal Meaning - Interpretation of the constitution should depend on the ordinary meaning of the text at the time it was drafted.\n\nTextualism - Original meaning constricted to its ordinary meaning and excludes intention of the legislature in passing the statute. It should be noted that textualism is concerned with the meaning of the overall text moreso than each individual word.\n\nConstitutions are documents which act as a frameworks for making laws. Laws should only be created by those designated as legislatures (Congress). It is up to the justices to interpret whether laws are constitutional when a challenge is raised. Under originalist views, if the law does not match the constitution, it should be rejected; if it matches it is fine. Those in favor of the 'living document' theory may refer to the constitution and past judicial decisions; but tend to favor personal and social opinion.\n\nThe biggest difference in the views comes when the constitution has nothing to say about the law in question. Originalist tend to reject the case since there is no constitutional backing. Those in favor of the 'living constitution' tend to interpret the law despite no constitutional backing.\n\nIf the constitution has nothing to say on the issue, then it is Congress's job to radify a new ammdment to the constitution. Originalist tend to honor this power, while 'liing document' theorists will attempt to interpret law without constitutional backing.\n\nOriginalist also tend to honor stare decisis, that prior decisions should be recognized as precidents. They may overturn prior decisions that don't have constitutional backing, however, they tend to honor the prior decisions moreso than 'living document' theorists.\n\nI think Antonin Scalia says it best in this attack on 'living document' theory:\n"[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable."
675271
You need a lawyer with experience in defending the type of lawsuit filed against you.
727365
constitution test?  You need to be more specific.
106042
A lawyer is a person licensed by the state to advise clients in legal matters and represent them in courts of law and in other forms of dispute resolution. Most countries today require professional law advisors in their judicial systems.\n\nThe role of the lawyer can vary significantly across legal jurisdictions. For instance, in some countries, lawyers may be required to lead or manage criminal investigations. In the United States, lawyers advise their clients regarding their rights, and argue in favor of the best interests of their clients.
1169301
I can find no law by that name, but the idea you are talking about seems to be enshrined in case law:\n\nThose beneficiaries represented by appellant whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained come clearly within this category. As to them the statutory notice is sufficient. However great the odds that publication will never reach the eyes of such unknown parties, it is not in the typical case much more likely to fail than any of the choices open to legislators endeavoring to prescribe the best notice practicable. \n\nNor do we consider it unreasonable for the State to dispense with more certain notice to those beneficiaries whose interests are either conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to knowledge of the common trustee. Whatever searches might be required in another situation under ordinary standards of diligence, in view of the character of the proceedings and the nature of the interests here involved we think them unnecessary. We recognize the practical difficulties and costs that would be attendant on frequent investigations into the status of great numbers of beneficiaries, many of whose interests in the common fund are so remote as to be ephemeral; and we have no doubt that such impracticable and extended searches are not required in the [339 U.S. 306, 318]   name of due process. The expense of keeping informed from day to day of substitutions among even current income beneficiaries and presumptive remaindermen, to say nothing of the far greater number of contingent beneficiaries, would impose a severe burden on the plan, and would likely dissipate its advantages. These are practical matters in which we should be reluctant to disturb the judgment of the state authorities. \n\nAccordingly we overrule appellant's constitutional objections to published notice insofar as they are urged on behalf of any beneficiaries whose interests or addresses are unknown to the trustee.
913292
If this is for an essay and you have time for research then you use a treatise on constitutional law. There are also resources online.\n\nThe US Supreme Court rules on the federal constitution. State supreme courts (in NYS the Court of Appeals -- their supreme court is the lowest court of general jurisdiction, following English practice) rule on state constitutions. Here's an example where a state law on double jeopardy was stricter than the federal rule: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/192P2d449.htm (in federal practice, two different sovereigns can prosecute the same offense, California law (only) is different).\n\nCiting a US Supreme Court case is easy. You go to http://www.lexisone.com (free registration required) or to http://justia.us (uses Google searching rules which may be more familiar to you) and you look for what you want -- key words, etc. Supreme Court cases are cited in the pattern "Smith v. Jones, 123 U.S. 456 (19XX)".\n\nMost Supreme Court constitutional law cases are famous: Roe v. Wade (abortion), Loving v. Viriginia (miscegenation), Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy), Miranda v. Arizona (right to warnings upon arrest), Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel). And so on.