0
The Constitution makes no mention of a national bank How did each man justify his position on constitutional grounds?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Alexander Hamilton had a National Bank accepted into the federal government by the Necessary and Proper clause. There, it states implied powers, which are basically what the name is. There are certain things in the Constitution that imply that topics such as the National Bank (Section 8 of the Constitution) would be constitutional if necessary for carrying out the Government at the time.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Mention the constitutional provisions that make India secular?
Two constitutional provisions that make India a secular state are: 1. The Constitution provides to all individuals and communities freedom to profess, practice and propagate any religion, or not to follow any. 2. The Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion.
Was the creation of the state of West Virginia in violation of the US constitution?
It would have been if the state of Virginia was still reporting to Washington. But seceding from a rebel state in order to re-join the Union could not be criticised on constitutional grounds - except concerning the constitution of the Confederacy.
Who was a leading figure in the American Revolution and later opposed ratification of the Constitution on the grounds that the national government should be a union of states and not also of people?
Thomas Jefferson
What does it mean to pass constitutional muster?
It means to withstand a legal challenge on Constitutional grounds. An unconstitutional law is one that will not "pass Constitutional muster," and would be overturned by the SCOTUS if challenged.
Who opposed the Constitution on the grounds of state's rights?
New Hampshire
What is the role of the state supreme courts?
A State Supreme Court is the highest Court in the State that interprets the State Constitution and State law. A Constitutional doctrine of importance to these Courts is the doctrine of adequate and independent State grounds, which imbues the State Supreme Courts with authority to specify a ruling on a State Constitutional provision which mirrors a U.S. Constitution provision (which can be broader than the federal provisions), or other State Constitutional provisions which do not mirror those in the federal Constitution. If a State Supreme Court specifies a ruling to have adequate and independent State grounds, the Supreme Court of the United States will generally defer to its State counterparts in these particular matters--one exception being where mirroring State Constitutional principles are interpreted less broadly than their federal counterparts. This is an aspect of the dual sovereigns theory of American federalism as applied to the judiciary.
Can a president be impeached for not following the constitution?
Yes, if the House of Representatives agrees that he is violating the provisions of the Constitution. (The precise grounds for impeachment are up to the House to decide upon, but failure to uphold the Constitution would certainly be grounds if the charges could be proven. )
What is meant by a rejection on probation from employment can only be appealed under legal or constitutional grounds?
It means that your prospective employer reserves the right to terminate you, or NOT employ you, for ANY reason he sees fit, except those specifically spelled out in statute law or the Constitution.
How big are the camping grounds at Yellowstone national park?
Not very
What is the role of the supreme court in the federal system'?
In the U.S., each U.S. State has a State Supreme Court, and for the United States as a whole, the highest Court is the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States can, by the U.S. Constitution, review any case or controversy, typically as to Constitutional issues, to settle uncertainties as to the law and further define the legal meaning of the U.S. Constitution.However, the Court does usually defer to State Supreme Court decisions having adequate and independent State grounds. A State Supreme Court has to explicitly specify in a ruling it hands down that the ruling is based on adequate and independent State grounds, according to what in law constitutes adequate and independent State grounds. For instance, a State Constitutional ruling interpreting eminent domain law can be broader than the support set forth in Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution, but not narrower.The State Supreme Courts don't just get to say "our decision is final and cannot be appealed for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States because we say so." That is, adequate and independent State grounds do not exist where inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and the Court's interpretation of it. Where State Constitutions mirror the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution provisions cannot be interpreted more narrowly than how the U.S. Constitution provisions are interpreted, and then "justified" as having been done on "adequate and independent State grounds". Other State Constitutional provisions that are unconstitutional by the U.S. Constitution also will be struck down when brought to the Court as a constitutional "case or controversy". This derives from the theory of dual sovereigns in American federalism.The Court's authority for this derives from U.S. Const., Art VI, Cl. 2:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
What is the role of the Supreme Court in federalism?
In the U.S., each U.S. State has a State Supreme Court, and for the United States as a whole, the highest Court is the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States can, by the U.S. Constitution, review any case or controversy, typically as to Constitutional issues, to settle uncertainties as to the law and further define the legal meaning of the U.S. Constitution.However, the Court does usually defer to State Supreme Court decisions having adequate and independent State grounds. A State Supreme Court has to explicitly specify in a ruling it hands down that the ruling is based on adequate and independent State grounds, according to what in law constitutes adequate and independent State grounds. For instance, a State Constitutional ruling interpreting eminent domain law can be broader than the support set forth in Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution, but not narrower.The State Supreme Courts don't just get to say "our decision is final and cannot be appealed for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States because we say so." That is, adequate and independent State grounds do not exist where inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and the Court's interpretation of it. Where State Constitutions mirror the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution provisions cannot be interpreted more narrowly than how the U.S. Constitution provisions are interpreted, and then "justified" as having been done on "adequate and independent State grounds". Other State Constitutional provisions that are unconstitutional by the U.S. Constitution also will be struck down when brought to the Court as a constitutional "case or controversy". This derives from the theory of dual sovereigns in American federalism.The Court's authority for this derives from U.S. Const., Art VI, Cl. 2:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
On what grounds did Patrick Henry not oppose the new constitution?
the states had too many rights
