Summarize briefly how the supreme court has limited the time, place, and manner of assembly.?
914566
its your 'omework mate!
796136
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and legislation. The basic principle is that the Supreme Court tries to get to the intent of legislation, and determines if the intent conflicts with the intent of the Constitution. \n\nIn general, all lower courts do the same thing; they try to determine an appropriate judgement by using the intent of law makers and the prior decisions of the Supreme Court.\n\nThe other branches of government cannot directly interfere with the workings of the court. However, when something has been left vague in previous law and has been interpretted by the courts, the legislature can go back and amend or make new law to make their intent clearer. Often the courts will include advice in their judgement to the legislature to do just that; they'll send an issue back to them to clarify.
168661
I'm not sure about California laws, but in the constitution, it states that everyone has the right to a speedy due process. I don't think the judge can sit on it for a long period of time.
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.
80588
Try FindLaw.com. It covers U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulation, U.S. Supremem Court decisions, and just a ton of other stuff. There is also a breakdown on state codes and regulation.
802114
You can appeal TO the Supreme Court, but you cannot appeal the final determination of the Supreme Court.  The only thing to do then is get Congress to change the law.
41619
During the proceedings themselves? That is not possible.  Only a higher court can over rule a court, and that's only if they agree to hear the case in the first place.  Many superior courts will turn cases back claiming juristiction issues, and the Supreme Court rejects cases almost routinely, as few cases rise to the level of a true challenge to current interpretations of the Constitution.
968252
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html\nThe supreme court docket online.\nHas both resolved and pending court cases.
887970
read this article, its giving u a lot of details :\n\nhttp://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/new_s/juris.htm
861183
C\nA\nC\n\nDiscussion on number 2:\nA. There was no president as we view the office today, in fact, the original founders did not want a central government led by one person. They were afraid of tyranny so they deliberately stayed away from that system.\n\nB. The articles did not discuss a central court, but did establish full faith and credit between the states of the the judicial and court proceedings of the states.  However, Congress was the "court" to determine disputes between the states.  A Central court, or judicial branch came later with the US Constitution. \n\nC.  The regulation of interstate commerce by the Federal Government was a sticking point.  At this time, the 13 states were 13 separate republics.  There was an attempt to amend to amend the Articles to allow Congress power over interstate commerce, but the conception of the new Constitution coincided so the "former" articles never really addressed interstate commerce.\n\nD.  Again, no president as we view it today, but there was a president of the Congress.  That position did not make decisions, because most decisions needed the votes of 9 states and major decisions needed all 13.  Vetoing power and the executive branch came later, with the new US Constitution. \n\nBEST ANSWER for #2 is A.
700467
It would state the effective date in the question.  \n\nIt would take effect on that date, unless there is a court challenge to the constitutionality of the question.\n\nSee this wikipedia site for details.
58970
With all due respect, your stated desire doesn’t make any sense.  The ten articles of the United States Bill of Rights are written in clear language with most economical use of the language.  There are only 462 words of content in all ten amendments.\n\nIt would be interesting to know what is your intended use.  In my seminars I find that rather than summarize them I have to expand from both a origin perspective as well as from a case law perspective.  To do less is to cloud them in misunderstandings.     \n\nIf this is a class project, have your instructor contact me and I'll explain why this is not possible, something the instructor should already know.
30333
The facts are set forth within the body of the Supreme Court's opinion here:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=528
343338
In the U.S. the supreme court is tasked with interpreting the constitution.  The supreme court has the power to find laws written the legislature unconstitutional.
168235
U.S. Supreme Court\nHAMMER v. DAGENHART\n 247 U.S. 251 (1918)\nDecided June 3, 1918.\n\nMr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court. \nA bill was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina by a father in his own behalf and as next friend of his two minor sons, one under the age of fourteen years and the other between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years, employes in a cotton mill at Charlotte, North Carolina, to enjoin the enforcement of the act of Congress intended to prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor. Act Sept. 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 675.... \nThe attack upon the act rests upon three propositions: First: It is not a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce; second: It contravenes the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; third: It conflicts with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. \nThe controlling question for decision is: Is it within the authority of Congress in regulating commerce among the states to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of manufactured goods, the product of a factory in which, within thirty days prior to their removal therefrom, children under the age of fourteen have been employed or permitted to work, or children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years have been employed or permitted to work more than eight hours in any day, or more than six days in any week, or after the hour of 7 o'clock p. m., or before the hour of 6 o'clock a. m.? \nThe power essential to the passage of this act, the government contends, is found in the commerce clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. \nIn Gibbons v. Ogdon, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, and defining the extent and nature of the commerce power, said, 'It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.' In other words, the power is one to control the means by which commerce is carried on, which is directly the contrary of the assumed right to forbid commerce from moving and thus destroying it as to particular commodities. But it is insisted that adjudged cases in this court establish the doctrine that the power to regulate given to Congress incidentally includes the authority to prohibit the movement of ordinary commodities and therefore that the subject is not open for discussion. The cases demonstrate the contrary. They rest upon the character of the particular subjects dealt with and the fact that the scope of governmental authority, state or national, possessed over them is such that the authority to prohibit is as to them but the exertion of the power to regulate.... \nIn each of these instances the use of interstate transportation was necessary to the accomplishment of harmful results. In other words, although the power over interstate transportation was to regulate, that could only be accomplished by prohibiting the use of the facilities of interstate commerce to effect the evil intended. \nThis element is wanting in the present case. The thing intended to be accomplished by this statute is the denial of the facilities of interstate commerce to those manufacturers in the states who employ children within the prohibited ages. The act in its effect does not regulate transportation among the states, but aims to standardize the ages at which children may be employed in mining and manufacturing within the states. The goods shipped are of themselves harmless. The act permits them to be freely shipped after thirty days from the time of their removal from the factory. When offered for shipment, and before transportation begins, the labor of their production is over, and the mere fact that they were intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power. \nCommerce 'consists of intercourse and traffic ... and includes the transportation
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
1000899
Hoo boy. Flexible living document? You're talking about a document where the people and the states gave a limited amount of power to the federal government to act. The government was given strict limits, because going beyond those limits would be taking power and freedom from the people. And they have.\n\nIt has an amendment process to make it change with the times.\n\nAnd we have lost much because the Supreme Court have violated their limits and created unConstitutional law our of whole cloth based on their biased views of society.\n\nNo, it is not a living document - it is a contract.\n\nGod help us from those who seek to give up their freedoms and liberties.