 | United States. Supreme Court - 1969 - Страниц: 1102
...to otherwise eligible applicants solely because they have recently moved into the jurisdiction. But in moving from State to State or to the District of...compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional. Cf . Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US 535, 541 (1942); Korematsu v. United States, 323 US 214, 216 (1944);... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1970 - Страниц: 726
...specifically rejected the argument that a mere showing of a rational relationship between the waiting period and a permissible State purpose is enough to justify...is unconstitutional." (394 US 634.) Since the State regulations involved here touch on the fundamental right to vote, and other rights which I shall discuss... | |
 | United States. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce - 1970 - Страниц: 1422
...to otherwise eligible applicants, solely because they have recently moved into the jurisdiction. But In moving from State to State or to the District of...compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional." i Emphasis added.) The Court's discussion of the rationales asserted in support of the residency restriction... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity - 1971 - Страниц: 514
...whether they can be satisfied without burdening unduly the citizen's interest in interstate movement: "[A]ny classification which serves to penalize the...to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional."510 The Court adds: "(The states] in these cases do not use and have no need to use... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce - 1971 - Страниц: 2412
...Court of the United States has recently stated that legislation cannot infringe upon a fundamental right "unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest." Shapiro v. Thompson. 394 US 618, 634 (1969). If a state cannot penalize the right to travel (the right... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce - 1971 - Страниц: 1490
...Court of the United States has recently stated that legislation cannot infringe upon a fundamental right "unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest." Shapiro v. Thompson. 394 US 618, 634 (1969). If a state cannot penalize the right to travel (the right... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, Henry Putzel, Henry C. Lind, Frank D. Wagner - 1972 - Страниц: 980
...629; Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 US 112, 285 (opinion of STEWART, J.) (1970). Opinion of the Court 403 US to State or to the District of Columbia appellees...governmental interest, is unconstitutional." 394 US, at 634. The classifications involved in the instant cases, on the other hand, are inherently suspect... | |
 | Jean Georges Sauveplanne - 1974 - Страниц: 272
...to otherwise eligible applicants solely because they have recently moved into the jurisdiction. But in moving from State to State or to the District of...compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional. * * * * * * the traditional criteria do not apply in these cases. Since the classification here touches... | |
 | United States. Congress. House. GHouse Administration Committee - 1975 - Страниц: 306
...specifically rejected the argument that a mere showing of a rational relationship between the waiting period and a permissible State purpose is enough to justify...unconstitutional" — 394 US 634. Since the State regulations involved here also touch on the fundamental right to vote, and other rights which I shall... | |
| |
But in moving from State to State or to the District of Columbia appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental... 
