Opinions vary amongst Muslims when it comes to one crucial question to which women's mosques give rise: Can women permissibly be imams?
|
|
"Inter partes review is simply a reconsideration of that grant, and Congress has permissibly reserved the PTO's authority to conduct that reconsideration," Thomas wrote.
|
|
The guidance reversed Tuesday provided examples of different educational contexts within which institutions could permissibly consider race and answered questions about how to interpret Supreme Court decisions.
|
|
" The lawyers added, "As to the one unnamed legal client, we do not believe that Mr. Cohen should be asked to reveal the name or can permissibly do so.
|
|
"DHS could also permissibly direct the separation of parents or legal guardians and minors held in immigration detention so that the parent or legal guardian can be prosecuted," the memo said.
|
|
Last week, the administration rescinded this guidance, which provided examples of different educational contexts within which institutions could permissibly consider race and answered questions about how to interpret Supreme Court decisions.
|
|
Feinstein and Nadler said the memo stated that DHS could "permissibly direct the separation of parents" and included a footnote stating a full legal analysis of the family separation option was attached.
|
|
In a 7-2 ruling, the court said Congress has permissibly given the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the right to reconsider and cancel an already-issued patent in a process known as inter partes review.
|
|
For example: While an aerial bomber in a just war would be morally wrong to target civilians intentionally, many philosophers allow that he can permissibly kill civilians when it is a foreseen but unintended side effect of a tactically essential bombing of a munitions factory.
|
|
Once houses of worship may permissibly engage in even limited campaign activity, a donor could use the incentive of financial support (or the threat of withdrawing support) to pressure a church to use its influence to support or oppose a candidate before the congregation.
|
|
"Massachusetts has permissibly chosen to prohibit a narrowly defined group of weapons used disproportionally in (mass shootings), while at the same time ensuring that law-abiding residents have access to a host of other firearms for self-defense and other lawful activities," the brief states.
|
|
Yoreh Deah 16:2 The "day" in question is defined as running from evening to evening, similar to Shabbat.Talmud Hullin 83a Therefore, one could permissibly slaughter an animal in the late afternoon, and its offspring shortly afterwards at nighttime.
|
|
The Shabbos App was a proposed Android app claimed by its creators to enable Jews to permissibly use a smartphone to text on Shabbat. Developers stated that the application would be released in December 2014, but the app was delayed and eventually never released. When announced, the app caused an uproar among the public, and many rabbis spoke out against the development.
|
|
Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.
|
|
Justice Marshall joined only the result of the case. He joined because the evasive actions of Savage turned "what otherwise would have been a permissibly brief Terry stop into the prolonged encounter now at issue." Justice Marshall, however, wrote separately to emphasize the importance of Terry's brevity requirement to the constitutionality of Terry stops. Justice Marshall went on to describe the history of Terry v.
|
|
Although highly paid as Commander of Defense Companies, he accumulated unexplained wealth. According to Hanna Batatu, "there is no way that he could have permissibly accumulated the vast sums needed for the investments he made in real estate in Syria, Europe and the United States". Although it is unclear if any top officials supported Rifaat al-Assad, most did not. He lacked his brother's stature and charisma, and was vulnerable to charges of corruption.
|
|
Adventures in Education, Inc. and Aldous Huxley famously wrote of it in his 1934 travel book Beyond the Mexique Bay: "Lake Como, it seems to me, touches on the limit of permissibly picturesque, but Atitlán is Como with additional embellishments of several immense volcanoes. It really is too much of a good thing." The area around San Marcos has particularly tall cliffs abutting the lake and in recent years has become renowned for cliff diving.
|
|
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.
|
|
TAKS-M (modified) is adjusted to have a larger font size, fewer items per page, reduced number of answer choices, and embedded questions depending upon the subject being assessed. While the TAKS-M items use simplified wording, content is still assessed on grade level. Only 2% of students per district will be permissibly scored as "Proficient" using the TAKS-M. TAKS-Alt (alternative) has a 1% permissibility ceiling and is for students facing significant cognitive disabilities.
|
|
Most business entities are required to register an official mailing address with the state, and that address is part of the public record.See, e.g., A business's use of an invalid address or an inappropriate third party as its official mailing address could result in legal problems, such as the loss of limited liability protection. If a business does not want to disclose its physical location, it may permissibly use a CMRA as its publicly known address.
|
|
In a 5–4 decision, with Justice Rutledge writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court upheld the Massachusetts laws restricting the abilities of children to sell religious literature. The decision asserted that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.
|
|
But in 1997, in City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court limited congressional power to override state sovereign immunity using the Fourteenth Amendment, and for the first time required "congruence and proportionality" between the constitutional wrong and the congressionally enacted remedy to protect constitutional rights.521 U.S. 507, 520 (1997). Boerne held that it was the Court, and only the Court, that could determine what constituted a constitutional wrong, and that Congress could not permissibly increase the level of constitutional protection beyond that which the Court had recognized.
|
|
Niddah 13b The Talmud also described procedures in case a man emitted semen (permissibly or otherwise). It states that one who experienced an emission of semen is required by the Torah to immerse in water in order to be allowed to consume from a heave offering or sacrifice. It also states that Ezra decreed that one should also immerse in order to be allowed to recite words of Torah, but that Ezra's decree no longer applies nowadays. Later on, the Rishonim debated whether Ezra's decree still applies in regard to prayer.
|
|
Because oil and gas are fluids, they may flow in the subsurface across property boundaries. In this way, an operator may permissibly extract oil and gas from beneath the land of another, if the extraction is lawfully conducted on his own propertyKelly v. Ohio Oil Co., 57 Ohio St. 317, 49 N.E. 399 (1897).. An operator may not angle a well to penetrate beneath property not owned by or leased to him. The two conflicting legal doctrines covering oil and gas extraction are the rule of capture, and the correlative rights doctrine.
|
|
As of February 2008, there were fears that this system provided a safety net for losers in these races, as shown by loan taken out by John McCain's campaign that used the promise of matching funds as collateral. However, in February 2009 the Federal Election Commission found no violation of the law because McCain permissibly withdrew from the Matching Payment Program and thus was released from his obligations. It also found no reason to believe that a violation occurred as a result of the Committee's reporting of McCain's loan. The Commission closed the files.
|
|
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court for all but Parts II-D and III; however, only Justices White and Kennedy joined that opinion in its entirety. In discussing the fetal viability section, the plurality asserted that the right to abortion was a "liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause" subject to restriction by any laws which would permissibly further a rational state interest such as protecting potential life. The plurality said that this would require the court to "modify and narrow Roe and succeeding cases." Justices O'Connor and Scalia joined Rehnquist's opinion except for the section on viability testing.
|
|
In Australian courts Section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution focuses on matters of substance rather than form, and therefore the definitions of "acquisition" and "property" are to be interpreted liberally. In the case of Yanner v Eaton.. it was mentioned that the word "property" is often used to refer to something that belongs to another, though in law, "property" does not refer to a thing; it is a description of a legal relationship with a thing. It refers to a degree of power that is recognised in law as power permissibly exercised over the thing. The concept of "property" may be elusive.
|
|
Thus, customers might be allowed to use electricity generated on Shabbat.שימוש בחשמל בשבת Nowadays, it is generally accepted that consumers may use electricity from the power plant.Tahanat Koach Hashmalit beShabbat05\. Using Electricity that Was Produced on Shabbat However, part of the charedi community refuses to use the electric grid (instead of running electricity generators at home), following the opinion of the Chazon Ish who argued that even if a power plant could run permissibly, using its electricity would be forbidden, as the secular workers there do not respect Shabbat and using their electricity would show public approval of their actions.
|
|
Justice O'Connor joined the Majority's opinion for Parts I (cataloguing the facts) and III (holding that the law is not vague or overbroad). Justice O'Connor also agreed that the Jaycees could not claim protection in the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of expressive association. Justice O'Connor took issue, however, with the Majority's test for when a group may permissibly exclude outsiders who it alleges will change the group's message. Justice O'Connor highlighted the perverse outcomes this rule has: If the Jaycees had historically opposed women's rights, or other causes seen as supported by women, it could exclude women more easily than a men's club that remained neutral on such topics.468 U.S. at 633.
|
|
And declared that if a cost–benefit analysis were to be done, monetize all aquatic life not just the 1.8 percent believed to have commercial or recreational value. EPA's estimate of aquatic life value was $83 million for less than 2% of aquatic life as opposed to a measured $735 million for all aquatic life. Held: The EPA permissibly relied on cost–benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards in providing for cost–benefit variances from those standards as part of the Phase II regulations. EPA's perspective is that 1326(b)'s "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" standard permits consideration of the technology costs and the relationship between the added cost and the related environmental benefit.
|
|
Beginning with the 1926 decision in United States v. General Electric Co.,. the Supreme Court made a sharp distinction between (i) post-sale restraints that a patentee imposed on purchasers of a patented product and (ii) restrictions (limitations) that a patentee imposed on a licensee to manufacture a patented product: the former being illegal and unenforceable under the exhaustion doctrine while the latter were generally permissible under a lenient "rule of reason." Thus, under the General Talking Pictures doctrine, a patent holder may permissibly license others to manufacture and then sell patented products in only a specified field (market), such as only a particular type of product made under the patent or only a particular category of customer for the patented product.
|
|
In General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U.S. 175, 182 (1938) (upholding as legitimate field-of-use limitations on scope of patent licenses to make and sell amplifiers only in “non-commercial” field), affirmed on rehearing, 305 U.S. 124 (1938), the Supreme Court held that a patent owner could permissibly license another to manufacture the patented product only in a defined field (in that case, amplifiers for sale and use other than to movie theaters, so-called noncommercial use). The defendants were held patent infringers for making and selling the patented product to movie theaters. The Court stated (305 U.S. at 127): > The practice of granting licenses for a restricted use is an old one, see > Rubber Company v.
|
|
In his 2005 book, A Theory of Secession: The Case for Political Self-Determination, Wellman argues that separatist groups can have a right to secede even if they seek to break off from legitimate states who have never treated the separatists unjustly. On his view, any group has a moral right to secede as long as its political divorce will leave it and the remainder state in position to perform requisite functions. Wellman shows that legitimate states can be valued while permitting theirldivision. Once political states are recognized as valuable because of their functions, the territorial boundaries of existing states might permissibly be redrawn as long as neither the process not the result of this reconfiguration interrupts the delivery of the crucial functions.
|
|
The case concerned the legality and constitutionality of Department of Health and Human Services regulations on the use of funds spent by the U.S. federal government to promote family planning (Title X). With Title X of the Public Health Service Act, Congress prohibited the funds from being "used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." In 1988, the Republican-appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services issued new regulations that prohibited projects receiving these funds from not only providing abortions, but also counseling, advising, or promoting the idea that a woman seek an abortion. These regulations were challenged on the grounds that they were not permissibly within the scope of the statute and that they violated the First and Fifth Amendments. In Rust v.
|
|
L. 109–8, title I, § 106(a), title VIII, § 802(d)(1), title X, § 1007(b), title XII, § 1204(1), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 37, 146, 188, 193.] those who can and cannot receive protection under each chapter, the Court was "loath to infer the exclusion of certain classes of debtors from the protections of Chapter 11."Toibb, 501 U.S. at 161. Turning to the legislative history of the then- current version of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court acknowledged that a Senate report showed that Congress anticipated that businesses would be the most common parties to file under chapter 11. However, this did not show that only businesses could permissibly file under chapter 11.Toibb, 501 U.S. at 162 (quoting S.Rep. No. 95-989, p.
|
|
Thus, failing to rescue a drowning child counts as a harmful act, as does failing to pay taxes, or failing to appear as a witness in court. All such harmful omissions may be regulated, according to Mill. By contrast, it does not count as harming someone if—without force or fraud—the affected individual Consents to assume the risk: thus one may permissibly offer unsafe employment to others, provided there is no deception involved. (He does, however, recognise one limit to consent: society should not permit people to sell themselves into slavery.) The question of what counts as a self-regarding action and what actions, whether of omission or commission, constitute harmful actions subject to regulation, continues to exercise interpreters of Mill.
|
|
As such, the District Court ordered Trump to comply with subpoena pending a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit panel ruled unanimously against Trump in November 2019. Their decision stated that that the president is not immune from "the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non-privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President" and that a state grand jury may permissibly issue subpoenas "in aid of its investigation of potential crimes committed by persons within its jurisdiction, even if that investigation may in some way implicate the President."Benjamin Weiser & Adam Liptak, Trump Taxes: Appeals Court Rules President Must Turn Over 8 Years of Tax Returns, New York Times (November 4, 2019).
|
|
If he is disconnected from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will recover and can be safely disconnected. Thomson takes it that you may permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will kill him. The right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so in disconnecting the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something--the use of your body--to which he has no right. Similarly, even if the fetus has a right to life, it does not have a right to use the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions against her will; and so aborting the pregnancy is permissible in at least some circumstances.
|
|
American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 398-399. Advocating a balancing of interests and citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1878) (an individual's religious beliefs cannot be accepted as proof of a felony act without evidence of commission of the crime), Vinson instead proposed a balancing test.American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399-400. Part V of the decision discussed whether political strikes posed such a significant issue as to permissibly infringe on freedom of speech. Vinson refused to substitute the Court's judgment for the congressional determination that this was the case.American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 400-401. In accepting the authority of government to promote strong unions, Vinson observed, the Court had repeatedly also accepted the authority of government to infringe in sometimes substantial ways upon individual liberties.American Communications Association v.
|
|
In the Second Circuit's Trump v. Vance (2019) opinion, Judge Katzmann, writing for a unanimous three judge panel, held that the president is not immune from the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non-privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President and that a state grand jury may permissibly issue subpoenas in aid of its investigation of potential crimes committed by persons within its jurisdiction, even if that investigation may in some way implicate the President. In June 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling in Trump v. Vance. In Watson v. United States (2017), Judge Katzmann in dissent decried the government’s wrongful detention of a U.S. citizen for 1,273 days, arguing that Watson should be entitled to sue the government for damages.
|
|
From the perspective of absolute desert, but not from the perspective of comparative desert, it would be better if just one of them fared badly. So, Temkin shows that the concern for comparative fairness is not the same as the concern about absolute desert. Second, Temkin further argues that the concern about comparative fairness is distinct from the concern about comparative desert. Suppose that Susan is a really good person who chooses to give most of her income to the badly off, and that John is a less good person who permissibly chooses to spend his money on himself. If Susan predictably ends up worse off than John, this would be objectionable from the standpoint of comparative desert, since Susan is a morally more deserving person than John; but Temkin suggests that there may be no egalitarian objection to Susan’s being worse off than John, on the grounds that there may be no comparative unfairness in their relative positions, given that Susan autonomously chose to make herself worse off than John.
|
|
On November 4, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled unanimously that Mazars must comply with the subpoena and hand over eight years of Trump's tax returns. The court held that the president is not immune from "the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non-privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President" and that a state grand jury may permissibly issue subpoenas "in aid of its investigation of potential crimes committed by persons within its jurisdiction, even if that investigation may in some way implicate the President". Noting that "the President concedes that his immunity lasts only so long as he holds office and that he could therefore be prosecuted after leaving office," the Second Circuit ruled that there "is no obvious reason why a state could not begin to investigate a President during his term and, with the information secured during that search, ultimately determine to prosecute him after he leaves office." Trump subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asserting that the grand-jury subpoena directed to him violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
|
|