翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ United States women's national rugby union team (sevens) ・ United States women's national soccer team ・ United States women's national softball team ・ United States women's national squash team ・ United States women's national under-17 soccer team ・ United States women's national under-18 ice hockey team ・ United States women's national under-20 soccer team ・ United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ・ United States v. Smith ・ United States v. Snider ・ United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. ・ United States v. Solon ・ United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n ・ United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. ・ United States v. Spearin ・ United States v. Sprague ・ United States v. Spy Factory, Inc. ・ United States v. Stanley ・ United States v. Steever ・ United States v. Stevens ・ United States v. Stewart ・ United States v. Stewart (1940) ・ United States v. Stewart (2003) ・ United States v. Stickrath ・ United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures ・ United States v. Sun Myung Moon ・ United States v. Swartz ・ United States v. Syufy Enterprises ・ United States v. The Amistad ・ United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク United States v. Sprague ： ウィキペディア英語版 United States v. Sprague ''United States v. Sprague'', was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the Fifth Article of the US Constitution. The defendants had been indicted under the National Prohibition Act and were attempting to quash their indictments, arguing that the Eighteenth Amendment had not been properly ratified. Their reasoning was that the Congress of the United States had chosen to ratify it by usage of state legislatures instead of constitutional conventions. If this were held true, Congress would have exceeded its authority in passing the NPA. The court did not agree, however, ruling that the Constitution explicitly authorized Congress to determine the method used in ratifying amendments. In part, Article Five states that any amendment "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, ''as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress''" (emphasis added). Furthermore, the court rejected the defendants' claim that the Eighteenth Amendment needed to be ratified by state conventions since "all (amendments ) save the Eighteenth dealt solely with governmental means and machinery rather than with the rights of the individual citizen." The Constitution does not make a difference between types of amendments, the court held, so the amendment, "by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution." ==See also== *List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 282 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「United States v. Sprague」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.