| United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee No. 5 - 1968 - 520 lapas
...control of the Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them. The last sentence of this quotation clearly presents a valid policy consideration which will be controlling... | |
| United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary - 1968 - 520 lapas
...control of the Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them. The last sentence of this quotation clearly presents a valid policy consideration which will be controlling... | |
| United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources - 1983 - 1676 lapas
...control of the Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them. The principle is not limited to the incidental effect of the exercise by the Congress of its constitutional... | |
| United States. Federal Communications Commission - 1996 - 610 lapas
...therefore, its application may not be defeated by private contractual provisions. For the same reason, the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing...not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking.127 Moreover, in FCC v. Florida Power Corp., the Court permitted the Commission to invalidate... | |
| United States. Supreme Court - 1988 - 1186 lapas
...therefore, its application may not be defeated by private contractual provisions. For the same reason, the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing...not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking. Bowles v. Willingham, 321 US 503, 517 (1944); Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 US... | |
| Howard Coble - 2000 - 187 lapas
...whenever legislation requires one person to use his or her asset for the benefit of another. . . . [T]he fact that legislation disregards or destroys...not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking. This is not to say that contractual rights are never property rights or that the government... | |
| United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary - 2000 - 212 lapas
...at stake, this legislation does not "take" that interest within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. "[T]he fact that legislation disregards or destroys...not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking." Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 475 US 211, 224 (1986). The usual test for whether... | |
| United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 2003 - 486 lapas
...therefore, its application may not be defeated by private contractual provisions. For the same reason, the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing...not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking." Connolly v. Pension Ben. Guaranty Corp., 475 US 211,224(1986). See also Horowitz v. United... | |
| 252 lapas
...to a general federal statute that affects their value or enforceability. See Connolly, 475 US at 224 ("the fact that legislation disregards or destroys...not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking," although "[t]his is not to say that contractual rights are never property rights or that the... | |
| |