翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Legal rights of women in history
・ Legal risk
・ Legal Rites
・ Legal science
・ Legal Sea Foods
・ Legal secretary
・ Legal separation
・ Legal Services Act
・ Legal Services Act 2007
・ Legal Services Authorities
・ Legal Services Authorities Act 1987
・ Legal Services Board
・ Legal Services Commission
・ Legal Services Complaints Commissioner
・ Legal Services Consultative Panel
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez
・ Legal Services Corporation
・ Legal services in the United Kingdom
・ Legal Services NYC
・ Legal Services Ombudsman
・ Legal Services Research Centre
・ Legal Services Society
・ Legal socialization
・ Legal status and local government of Kiev
・ Legal status of Alaska
・ Legal status of animals in Canada
・ Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors
・ Legal status of cocaine
・ Legal status of Germany
・ Legal status of Hawaii


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez : ウィキペディア英語版
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez

''Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez'', , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, non-profit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend (or challenge) existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez, whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions, believing it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.
The Court ruled that this specific restriction violated the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because LSC facilitated "private" speech—that of its grantees—the restrictions did not simply regulate government speech. Because the restrictions blocked attempts to change only a specific area of law, the Court held, they could not be considered viewpoint-neutral; the government is prohibited from making such viewpoint-based restrictions of private speech.
Reactions to the decision were mixed within Congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing on the propriety of the decision. Several law review articles argued that the use of a "distortion principle" to decide violations of free speech was an unreasonable and unconstitutional rule whose conditions on funding might "distort" speech advocacy; others contended that the Court mishandled the interpretation of the statute at issue.
==Background==


抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.