Suchergebnisse

One-page letter dated January 5, 1855, from William Goodell on behalf of the American Abolition Society in New York, to Lysander Spooner in Boston, Massachusetts, ordering a supply of his book, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, for distribution to all members of congress, as well as additional copies to sell and give away.

Four-page letter dated December 3, 1855, from William Goodell in New York, to Lysander Spooner [in Boston, Massachusetts], discussing constitutional issues of slavery and Spooner's work.

Four-page letter dated December 1, 1855, from William Goodell in New York, to Lysander Spooner [in Boston, Massachusetts], discussing the legalization of slavery.

Four-page letter from Lysander Spooner in Boston [Massachusetts] to Gerrit Smith, dated November 2, 1855, in which Spooner disucsses anti-slavery arguments and the distribution of 300 copies of his book, "the Unconstitutionality of Slavery."

Two-page letter from Gerrit Smith in Peterboro [New York] to Lysander Spooner in Boston, Massachusetts, dated November 6, 1855, in which he expresses his pleasure that Spooner is writing an argument "on the Wilhelm case" and discusses the distribution of 300 copies of Spooner's book, "the Unconstitutionality of Slavery."

Four-page letter dated November 28, 1855, from William Goodell in New York, to Lysander Spooner [in Boston, Massachusetts], in which he approves of Spooner's plan to "agitate the Constitutional question."

Two-page letter from John A. Reed in Mount Vernon, Ohio, to Lysander Spooner dated July 2, 1851, asking Spooner to send the names and P.O. addresses of "those members of your Legislature who voted for Hon. Chas. [Charles] Sumner [?]."

Two-page letter from Gerrit Smith of Peterboro [New York] to Lysander Spooner in Boston, Massachusetts, dated December 4, 1847, regarding copies of Spooner's petition to Congress that Smith has forwarded on to Elizur Wright.

Two-page letter from Gerrit Smith of Peterboro [New York] to Lysander Spooner in Boston, Massachusetts, dated November 12, 1847, in which Smith pledges funds to support Spooner as he writes his newest book and discusses an anti-slavery convention in Buffalo [New York].

Publisher's advertisements at end. ; Includes: Report of the judgment of the High Court of Admiralty upon the Swedish convoy. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; NUC pre-1956, ; NSTC ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Spec. Coll. copy with class. no. DA530.9 is part of a collection (Collection 274). To page this item, use the collection record; to find the collection record, search the title: British political texts from the nineteenth century. Item is in box 10.

"An index of authors, and the editions of them, made use of in this work": 5th-7th prelim. leaves ; Mode of access: Internet.

1 sheet ([1] p.) ; With an order to print dated 22 Nov. 1649 [i.e. 1650]. ; Caption title. ; Last word of first line of text: "and"; first word of line below initial: "That"; last word of last full line on page: "of". ; Reproduction of the original in the British Library.

Aceh Qanun Number 7 of 2013 concerning the Jinayat Procedural Law, there is an article which regulates the evidence in the case of jarimah adultery, namely Article 182 paragraph (5) but does not mention the testimony given by women. The formulation of the problem is how Qanun stipulations No. 7 of 2013 concerning the proof in Jarimah Adultery, and how to review the testimony of women in the case of Jarimah Adultery according to the perspective of Islamic Law and Gender. Writing This article is categorized in normative legal research that is a legal research carried out by examining mere literature or secondary data. From the research results obtained reads Article 182 Aceh Qanun No. 7 of 2013 shows that witnesses are evidence. In the context of gender, the testimonies given by women and men are the same. Seeing the testimony as evidence in Islamic law, the differences of opinion between jumhur and Ibn Hazm can be concluded as complementary diversity. The diverse power of witnesses in a case requires that a Judge make a legal discovery

The new Italian electoral law (November 2017) is the sixth in the history of the Republic and presents serious reasons for criticism both for the approval procedure and for the dubious constitutionality on the merits. This apart from the lack of suitability to achieve the objective of guaranteeing a solid and non-fragile basis for the governability of the country. The confidence vote, adopted for the approval of the law in the two branches of parliament, is based on a superficial and casual interpretation of the relevant provisions of parliamentary regulations, detached from the spirit of the constitution and its last paragraph of article 72. The political class, which has developed the new law, not only has not learned from the most recent political experiences, but has also neglected the guiding lines of constitutional jurisprudence, reaffirmed in the last two sentences on the subject, n. 1 of 2014 and the n. 35 of 2017 (which the present volume reports in the appendix), which declared the partial unconstitutionality of the electoral laws of December 2005 and May 2015.