Q&A: Was Arizona’s 2006 law requiring proof of citizenship to vote ever overturned?
Question by iris054′s Shoe Fetish: Was Arizona’s 2006 law requiring proof of citizenship to vote ever overturned?
“A federal judge has ruled that key parts of Arizona’s voter-approved law requiring proof of citizenship to vote are constitutional and don’t violate federal or state law.”
Voter-ID law’s key elements upheld
Judge: Arizona measure doesn’t violate U.S. act
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0830votinglawsuit0830.html
Best answer:
Answer by Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso
that’s different, because voting is a privilege afforded only to US citizens; walking our streets in daylight isn’t. it’s a right.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Nice “constitutional law” photos
Check out these constitutional Images:
Constitutional Law Moot Court 1
Picture by href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/41017710@N00/2930894584″> Biko
3 to 4 September 2008. For constitutional law 1 class, our professor played us (in our own way), the Supreme Judicial proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I have different roles in the Supreme Court and the petitioners and respondents. I was on the Sigaw ng bayan / initiative folk Erico Aumentado as the petitioners. Some of us even took on the role of the Prosecutor and Joaquin Bernas amicus curiae.
Q & A: Why is affirmative action has been challenged on constitutional grounds, yet?
Question opposites are good : Why is affirmative action has been challenged on constitutional grounds, so far
Affirmative action violates the Equal Protection clause, which states that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clauseAfirmativní action violates this provision, as guarantees legal protection against discrimination of minorities and women, not white men. It violates this provision, as administered by an uneven level of protection to different groups. Best answer:
Reply from
Punartham
that time will come soon
Add your own answer in the comments!
For all of you who think Bush broke the law?
by godlyteengirl Question ? For all of you who think Bush broke the law
Have you ever taken the time to read a constitutional decision “Stenek v. United States,” which says that the president has the right to restrict civil liberties in wartime, including freedom of expression? You should be grateful that Bush is not taking away the right to protest our actions in Iraq, because he could if he wanted! So the “law breaking” off course, you have to hide? Why Bush can not protect us spying on phone calls and e-mails that go abroad? Again, “Stenek vs. United States” removes your “against the law” argument.Omlouváme, but his Schenk v. United States, and Stenek v. United States of America. It was a law passed during the 1st World války.A consider this: Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpas during the Civil War, long before the Schenk v. United States of America to práva.Ti of you who said: “We are at war” live in the communist world of fantasy! To tell me how we are at war? I’m not talking just about Iraq, I’m talking about the war against terrorism as a whole. YOU Idiots not what happened on the 11th September 2001? Oh, and here’s odkaz.http :/ / en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Schenck_v._United_States Best answer:
Reply from
bigsey93harrison37
And if you’re a terrorist, why are you dealing with the government can listen to your telephone calls?
What do you think? Answer below!
Q&A: Are they are violating federal law ?
Question by ShoeShine: Are they are violating federal law ?
Two national civil rights organizations are criticizing Collin County commissioners for prohibiting nonprofit clinics from treating illegal immigrants with county funds.
Officials with the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund say they think commissioners are violating federal privacy and health care laws.
“There’s no constitutional basis to limit these kinds of programs to U.S. citizens,” said Nina Perales, regional counsel for MALDEF in San Antonio.
Commissioners maintain they can legally ask nonprofit clinics that receive county grants to report each patient’s name, age, address, medical diagnosis and the last four digits of his or her Social Security number.
“To me, it’s not a racial situation,” Commissioner Jerry Hoagland said. “It’s an economic situation. If you don’t want to abide by the rules, don’t take the money.”
Several clinics have complained about the new reporting requirements, saying the policy forces them to violate patient confidentiality laws and play the role of immigration officer.
Clinics can still treat illegal immigrants, as long as they use other funds, commissioners have stressed. The county is not seeking personal information on patients treated with other funds.
One clinic, Children and Community Health Center of McKinney, has said it will reject its $ 30,000 grant rather than comply with the reporting requirements. Another, Frisco Cares Children’s Clinic, says it may refuse its $ 11,000 grant.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/stories/DN-outcry_07cco.ART.West.Edition1.3762b2a.html
Best answer:
Answer by steddy voter
I don’t think so. They aren’t telling them that they can’t treat people, they’re just saying that they can’t use tax dollars to do it. If someone wants to make charitable donations for these expenses, fine, that is their own choice. It should not be a financial burden to tax payers.
Give your answer to this question below!
Nice “Constitutional Law” photo
Check out these constitutional Images:
Constitutional Law Moot Court 1
Picture by href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/41017710@N00/2930022261″> Biko
3 to 4 September 2008. For constitutional law 1 class, our professor played us (in our own way), the Supreme Judicial proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I have different roles in the Supreme Court and the petitioners and respondents. I was on the Sigaw ng bayan / initiative folk Erico Aumentado as the petitioners. Some of us even took on the role of the Prosecutor and Joaquin Bernas amicus curiae.