Sentence examples for amendment history from inspiring English sources

Walter Dellinger, a lawyer for the defendant in the case and a former acting United States solicitor general, said the decision was "a signal event in Fourth Amendment history".

There is a competing, decidedly less heroic account of First Amendment history, which holds that judges have always tended to reflect the public's prejudices about unpopular speakers, and that most advances for free speech have been initiated not by judges, as Lewis argues, but by political activism.

To emphasize this point, Holmes came up with the most famous and vivid metaphor in First Amendment history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic". The metaphor was totally out of place in a case like Schenck's, involving reasoned written criticism of government policy.

In The Taming of Free Speech, Weinrib reconstructs First Amendment history to uncover its radical roots, arguing that we can trace our modern understanding of civil liberties to the early-twentieth-century political clashes over workers' right to strike.

Walter E. Dellinger III, the former U.S. Solicitor General and the attorney who represented the defendant, said the decision was "a signal event in Fourth Amendment history".

The inside is an evolving gallery of First Amendment history, which is updated to incorporate specific cases relevant to each of the mobile monument's destinations and audiences.

Post's subject areas are constitutional law, First Amendment, legal history, and equal protection.

It thereby arbitrarily curtails one of those liberties of the individual, now enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that history has attested as the indispensable conditions for the maintenance and progress of a free society.

The test is the reason underlying and expressed by the Fourth Amendment: the history and the experience which it embodies and the safeguards afforded by it against the evils to which it was a response.

Specifically, she argued that "the Court's reasoning was not only unnecessary, but the Washington doctrine itself is inconsistent with the Sixth Amendment's history and text".

The text of the 14th Amendment, the history of its adoption and the essentially local nature of university admissions all suggest that the Supreme Court should rule for the University of Texas.