For taxpayers who requested an extra six months to file their 2017 tax return, the extension deadline is Monday, October 15, 2018 for most taxpayers. For those who have not yet filed, here are a few ...
With the year more than halfway over, the Internal Revenue Service urges taxpayers who haven’t yet done a “Paycheck Checkup” to take a few minutes to see if they are having the right amount of ...
The Internal Revenue Service and Department of the Treasury have announced their intent to issue regulations on three recent tax law changes affecting popular 529 education savings plans. Tuition refunds The PATH Act change added a special ...
With hurricane season underway, it’s a good idea to think about what you can do to be prepared should a hurricane or other natural disaster strike where you live. Here are a few helpful tips ...
September Monday, September 17 Corporations: File calendar year Form 1120S if you timely requested a 6-month extension. Monday, September 17 Partnerships: File calendar year Form 1065 if you timely requested a 6-month extension. Monday, September 17 Individuals: ...
This book offers a comprehensive critique of the principle of proportionality and balancing as applied to human and constitutional rights.	
The principle of proportionality, which has become the standard test for adjudicating human and constitutional rights disputes in jurisdictions worldwide has had few critics. Proportionality is generally taken for granted or enthusiastically promoted or accepted with minor qualifications. A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing presents a frontal challenge to this orthodoxy. It provides a comprehensive critique of the proportionality principle, and particularly of its most characteristic component, balancing. Divided into three parts, the book presents arguments against the proportionality test, critiques the view of rights entailed by it, and proposes an alternative understanding of fundamental rights and their limits.	
A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing Introduction Part I 2 The maximisation account of proportionality 3 The incommensurability objection 4 Why proportionality 5 Proportionality rights and legitimate interests Part II 6 Proportionality as unconstrained moral reasoning 7 The need for legal direction in adjudication 8 Proportionality and the problems of legally unaided adjudication Part III 9 Legal human rights
"The principle of proportionality, which has become the standard test for adjudicating human and constitutional rights disputes in jurisdictions worldwide has had few critics. Proportionality is generally taken for granted or enthusiastically promoted or accepted with minor qualifications. A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing presents a frontal challenge to this orthodoxy. It provides a comprehensive critique of the proportionality principle, and particularly of its most characteristic component, balancing. Divided into three parts, the book presents arguments against the proportionality test, critiques the view of rights entailed by it, and proposes an alternative understanding of fundamental rights and their limits"--	
Although the most important constitutional doctrine worldwide, a thorough cultural and historical examination of proportionality has not taken place until now. This comparison of proportionality with its counterpart in American constitutional law - balancing - shows how culture and history can create deep differences in seemingly similar doctrines. Owing to its historical origin in Germany, proportionality carries to this day a pro-rights association, while the opposite is the case for balancing. In addition, European legal and political culture has shaped proportionality as intrinsic to the state's role in realizing shared values, while in the United States a suspicion-based legal and political culture has shaped balancing in more pragmatic and instrumental terms. Although many argue that the USA should converge on proportionality, the book shows that a complex web of cultural associations make it an unlikely prospect.	
To speak of human rights in the twenty-first century is to speak of proportionality. Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists - proponents and critics of proportionality - to debate the merits of proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.	
Proportionality is one of the most important principles in constitutional law, relevant throughout the law and in jurisdictions worldwide. Setting out the 'state of the art' in proportionality doctrine, this book combines theoretical reconstruction with case-law examples, defending and developing the dominant model of proportionality.	
The migration of constitutional ideas across jurisdictions is one of the central features of contemporary constitutional practice. The increasing use of comparative jurisprudence in interpreting constitutions is one example of this. In this 2007 book, leading figures in the study of comparative constitutionalism and comparative constitutional politics from North America, Europe and Australia discuss the dynamic processes whereby constitutional systems influence each other. They explore basic methodological questions which have thus far received little attention, and examine the complex relationship between national and supranational constitutionalism - an issue of considerable contemporary interest in Europe. The migration of constitutional ideas is discussed from a variety of methodological perspectives - comparative law, comparative politics, and cultural studies of law - and contributors draw on case-studies from a wide variety of jurisdictions: Australia, Hungary, India, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada.	
This book presents important new scholarship by leading figures in constitutional law on new challenges for proportionality doctrine.