Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q5303991> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 85 of
85
with 100 triples per page.
- Q5303991 subject Q6995686.
- Q5303991 subject Q8096940.
- Q5303991 subject Q8285196.
- Q5303991 subject Q8507358.
- Q5303991 abstract "Template:Infobox court caseThomas Bonham v College of Physicians, commonly known as Dr. Bonham's Case or simply Bonham's Case, was decided in 1610 by the Court of Common Pleas in England under Sir Edward Coke, the court's Chief Justice. Coke said that "in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament", and explained why he thought so. Coke's meaning has been disputed over the years; according to one interpretation, Coke intended the kind of judicial review that would later develop in the United States, whereas other scholars contend that Coke only meant to construe a statute without challenging Parliamentary sovereignty. If Coke intended the former, then he may have eventually changed his view. This statement by Coke is sometimes considered obiter dicta, rather than part of the rationale of the case.Whatever Coke's meaning, after an initial period when his decision enjoyed some support (but during which no statutes were declared void), Bonham's Case was thrown aside in favour of the growing doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. In one of the most prominent early treatises supporting that doctrine, William Blackstone wrote that Parliament is the sovereign law-maker, preventing the common law courts from throwing aside or reviewing statutes in the fashion Coke suggested. Parliamentary sovereignty is now the accepted judicial doctrine in the legal system of England and Wales. Bonham's Case was met with mixed reactions at the time, with King James I and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Ellesmere, both deeply unhappy with it; it has been suggested as one of the reasons for Coke's dismissal from the Common Pleas in 1613. Academics in the 19th and 20th centuries have been scarcely more favourable, calling it "a foolish doctrine alleged to have been laid down extra-judicially", and simply an "abortion".In the United States, Coke's decision met with a better reaction. During the legal and public campaigns against the writs of assistance and Stamp Act of 1765, Bonham's Case was given as a justification for nullifying the legislation, although by 1772 Blackstone's views gained acceptance. Marbury v. Madison, the American case which in 1803 formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution, used the words "void" and "repugnant", although Marbury's usage was somewhat different from Coke's usage. Academics have argued that Coke's work in Bonham's Case forms the basis of judicial review in the United States; other academics disagree, with one scholar calling this "one of the most enduring myths of American constitutional law and theory, to say nothing of history".".
- Q5303991 thumbnail St_Johns_College,_Cambridge_by_Loggan_1690.jpg?width=300.
- Q5303991 wikiPageExternalLink ?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106343&layout=html&Itemid=27.
- Q5303991 wikiPageExternalLink books?id=IdsVUov6AKYC&pg=PA37.
- Q5303991 wikiPageExternalLink books?id=IdsVUov6AKYC&pg=PA67.
- Q5303991 wikiPageExternalLink books?id=w8NLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1.
- Q5303991 wikiPageExternalLink books?id=w8NLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA28.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q11201.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1156248.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q11698.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q11806.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1335777.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1365125.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1422253.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1427716.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1477668.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q15109473.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1584160.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q16003969.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q16204645.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q178848.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q179997.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1813642.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q1822183.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q186356.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q189508.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q2017342.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q206634.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q217217.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q217595.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q220596.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q265638.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q2986212.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q310829.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q332435.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q332449.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q332738.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q34433.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q3570117.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q376351.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q3809556.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q405475.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q458.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q4671521.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q4809228.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q48429.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q5096810.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q5149752.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q5152382.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q5178387.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q5312127.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q5345210.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q538242.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q557531.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q5809754.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q5948745.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q6239694.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q687908.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q691283.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q6995686.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q714416.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q7177590.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q725292.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q7375091.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q7527153.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q7781950.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q7789657.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q7794851.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q7838806.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q7896086.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q79972.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q8005439.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q8007569.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q8096940.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q822286.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q8285196.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q8507358.
- Q5303991 wikiPageWikiLink Q898871.
- Q5303991 comment "Template:Infobox court caseThomas Bonham v College of Physicians, commonly known as Dr. Bonham's Case or simply Bonham's Case, was decided in 1610 by the Court of Common Pleas in England under Sir Edward Coke, the court's Chief Justice. Coke said that "in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament", and explained why he thought so.".
- Q5303991 label "Dr. Bonham's Case".
- Q5303991 depiction St_Johns_College,_Cambridge_by_Loggan_1690.jpg.