Most politicians consider the validity of the Constitution off limits as a subject for debate.
At this point, Kelsen famously argued, one must presuppose the legal validity of the Constitution.
The answer is that the legal validity of the Constitution of California derives from an authorization granted by the US Constitution.
The U.K.'s Queen Elizabeth II approved the change, but several wealthy landowners and the neighbouring island of Guernsey, which claimed sovereignty over Sark, questioned the validity of the new constitution.
But the validity of the written constitution will depend on a norm which is not created by the use of signs: the rule that that text is to be treated as setting out the constitution.[1] Bentham and his disciple, John Austin, knew that there are rules of law that were not laid down in language.
The Food Integrity Campaign was joined by 70 other organizations which together represent millions of people and stand for causes such as ending needless suffering, ensuring safe food and water, stopping the exploitation of workers and preserving the validity of the United States Constitution.
If the statute is to be assessed on its face, the Court should at least adhere to the principle that, for purposes of assessing the validity under the Constitution of a state statute, the construction given the statute by the State's courts is conclusive of its scope and meaning.
This case involves the validity under the Constitution of the United States of the statute known as the eight-hour law of Kansas of 1891, chap.
The various acts of legislation of the state were sustained by the courts of the state and hence their validity under the Constitution of the state is removed from the controversy, and our inquiry is confined to the effect upon them of the Constitution of the United States.
The basic norm is the content of the presupposition of the legal validity of the (first, historical) constitution of the relevant legal system (GT, 110 111).
Indeed, the language of the act is so plain on that point that argument can add nothing to its force.' It then proceeded to examine the quesion of the validity of the act under the constitution of Minnesota, as to whether the legislature was authorized to confer upon the commission the powers given to the latter by the statute.
