To ensure they have the capability as well as the responsibility, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty must be inapplicable to them.
|
|
A true originalist (or textualist) might also have to conclude that the entire Bill of Rights, including its protections for free speech, freedom of religion, and criminal procedure would be inapplicable to the states.
|
|
The case of VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland(2002) 34 EHRR 4 was considered, but found to be inapplicable to the British context, where the full strength of arguments against money in politics was considered. Lord Scott, while concurring with the result, dissented on one point at paragraph 44, by suggesting that ECHR cases were not actually binding on the UK courts. Baroness Hale gave a concurring judgment. Lord Carswell and Lord Neuberger concurred with Lord Bingham.
|
|
Proponents of EVM note a number of issues with implementing it, and further limitations may be inherent to the concept itself. Because EVM requires quantification of a project plan, it is often perceived to be inapplicable to discovery-driven or Agile software development projects. For example, it may be impossible to plan certain research projects far in advance, because research itself uncovers some opportunities (research paths) and actively eliminates others. However, another school of thought holds that all work can be planned, even if in weekly timeboxes or other short increments.
|
|
Weiss made the first exegesis of the Gospels from an perspective of consistent eschatology. According to Weiss, the "Kingdom of God" was Jesus' understanding of an imminent end to history, and all continuous ethical teachings were additions made by the early Church to make Jesus' teaching relevant when the end of the world did not come about immediately. This greatly influenced several generations of Biblical scholars. As a corollary, Weiss believed that the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus would be inapplicable to those who did not hold his first- century apocalyptic worldview.
|
|
Many countries criminalized "non-traditional" forms of sexual activity well into the modern era: notably, in the US state of Idaho, sodomy between consensual partners was punishable by a term of five years to life in prison as late as 2003, and this law was only ruled to be inapplicable to married couples in 1995. Today, in many countries, the definition of the actus reus has been extended to all forms of penetration of the vagina and anus (e.g. penetration with objects, fingers or other body parts) as well as insertion of the penis in the mouth.
|
|
The defensive spectrum is: Designated hitter – First baseman – Left fielder – Right fielder – Third baseman – Center fielder – Second baseman – Shortstop – Catcher – Pitcher In some versions of the defensive spectrum, pitcher and catcher are not included, since certain defensive demands of those positions are so specialized as to be inapplicable to players at other positions. The designated hitter is sometimes omitted since he is technically not part of the "defense" at all. As an example of the concept in action, players who are drafted by Major League Baseball teams as shortstops are far more likely to ultimately end up at a different position than players who are drafted as first basemen.
|
|
The Talmud. interprets the verses referring to "an eye for an eye" and similar expressions as mandating monetary compensation in tort cases and argues against the interpretations by Sadducees that the Bible verses refer to physical retaliation in kind, using the argument that such an interpretation would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders. Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted in this manner. However, the Torah also discusses a form of direct reciprocal justice, where the phrase ayin tachat ayin makes another appearance.. Here, the Torah discusses false witnesses who conspire to testify against another person.
|
|
This case pitted the plaintiffs, Thorne's Hardware Limited, Kent Lines Limited, Canaport Limited and Irving Oil Limited, against the National Harbours Board, over the extension of harbour limits. Appellants challenged in the Federal Court (1) the validity of an order in council extending the limits of the port of Saint John so as to include appellants' berth and harbour facilities and (2) the applicability to them of a National Harbours Board's By-law imposing harbour dues on all vessels entering or using the port. The Trial Division held the Order in Council intra vires the powers of the Governor in Council but the By-law to be inapplicable to the appellants. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge on the second point.
|
|