Congressional Research Service Reports - 322 Matching Results

Search Results

Results: 1 - 50 next
Tobacco Advertising: The Constitutionality of Limiting its Tax Deductibility
No Description Available.
Tobacco Marketing and Advertising Restrictions in S. 1648, 105th Congress: First Amendment Issues
No Description Available.
Tobacco Marketing and Advertising Restrictions in S. 1415, 105th Congress: First Amendment Issues
No Description Available.
The Property Rights Issue
The property rights issue arises because societal goals are sometimes pursued through government restrictions on the use of private property. At bottom, it is the age-old conflict between public goals and private rights.
Courts Rulings During 1994 on Constitutional Taking Claims Against the United States
In 1994, the second session of the 103rd Congress saw the political pressure exerted by property rights bills ascend new heights. Members supporting property rights legislation sought to add such provisions to nearly every major environmental bill. Opponents, including several committee chairmen, therefore declined to move the bills, and gridlock resulted.
Property Rights: Comparison of H.R. 9 as Passed and S. 605 as Reported
The leading property rights bills in the Congress are the Contract with America-derived H.R. 9 (Division B), as passed by the House in March, 1995, and S. 605, as reported from the Committee on the Judiciary.
Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment – of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
Tobacco Advertising: Whether the FDA's Restrictions Violate Freedom of Speech
No Description Available.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Its Rise, Fall, and Current Status
This report briefly summarizes Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith, the legislative history of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores, and RFRA's current legal status, and notes the introduction of the Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA).
"Property Rights" Bills Take a Process Approach: H.R. 992 and H.R. 1534
In the 105th Congress, the property rights agenda has shifted from "compensation" to "process" bills. While the former would ease the standards for when property owners harmed by government action are compensated, the new approach simply streamlines how federal courts handle such claims. This report examines the three leading process bills -- H.R. 992, House-passed H.R. 1534, and Senate-reported H.R. 1534. The bills embody two process approaches: allowing property owners suing the United States to bring invalidation and compensation claims in the same court, and lowering abstention and ripeness barriers when suing local governments in federal court for property rights violations.
Religious Persecution Abroad: Congressional Concerns and Actions
The 105 Congress has sought to raise the priority of combating religious persecution worldwide among U.S. foreign policy objectives. The difficulty has been in agreeing on legislation that would effectively deal with religious persecution without adversely affecting other important U.S. interests. On May 14, 1998, the House passed H.R. 2431 (the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1998) establishing in the State Department a Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring who is to issue an annual report assessing religious persecution abroad. The legislation places sanctions on countries and groups that carry out or permit such activities. The Senate may soon consider S. 1868 establishing an office in the Department of State to monitor religious persecution headed by an Ambassador at Large and requiring the President to take some action from a broad list of options against countries found engaging in or tolerating religious persecution.
Immigration-Related Provisions of Selected Bills on Religious Persecution
This report analyzes immigration-related provisions of H.R. 2431, the “Freedom from Religious Persecution Act,” as passed by the House on May 14, 1998, and S. 1868, the “International Religious Freedom Act,” as introduced in the Senate.
The Law of Church and State: The Proposed Religious Freedom Amendment, H.J. Res. 78
This report summarizes legislative developments on the proposal and briefly analyzes its likely legal effect if added to the Constitution.
The Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998
On July 7, 1998, Senator Hatch introduced S. 2271, the "Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998." The bill appears to be the likely replacement on the Senate floor for H.R. 1534 as reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. S. 2271 retains the basic "process" approach of its predecessor, but makes numerous changes. Among these are a restriction of H.R. 1534's takings-ripeness provisions to real property rather than all types of property, a new definition of "futility," different restrictions on district court abstention, and new provisions as to attorneys fees and prior notice applicable to parties suing local governments for takings under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
The Religious Freedom Amendment: H.J. Res. 78, As Reported by the House Judiciary Committee
This report details the legislative, political, and legal contexts of H.J.Res 78 (Religious Freedom Amendment) and analyzes its legal effect.
Online Privacy Protection: Issues and Developments
It is routinely acknowledged that the success of the Internet and electronic commerce depends upon the resolution of issues related to the privacy of online personal information. This paper discusses some potential threats to the privacy of online personal information, and efforts by businesses, governments, and citizens to respond to them. The paper also provides an overview of the legal framework for the protection of personal information. Individuals and businesses increasingly rely upon computers to transact business and to access the Internet. Online users may voluntarily disclose personal information, such information is often collected by Web sites for commercial purposes. The proliferation of online personal information has focused the attention of citizens, businesses, and governments on the issue.
Online Privacy Protection: Issues and Developments
No Description Available.
The Privacy Act: Emerging Issues and Related Legislation
No Description Available.
China's Relations with Central Asian States and Problems with Terrorism
This report provides an overview of the Muslim separatist movement in China’s northwestern Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China’s attempts to stifle activities which it considers terrorism, and implications for U.S. policy. Some analysts suggest that the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism may make it difficult to pressure the Chinese government on human rights and religious freedoms, particularly as they relate to Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang.
Treatment of "Battlefield Detainees" in the War on Terrorism
No Description Available.
Treatment of "Battlefield Detainees" in the War on Terrorism
No Description Available.
Critical Infrastructure Information Disclosure and Homeland Security
This report discusses the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that was passed to ensure by statute citizen access to government information. Nine categories of information may be exempted from disclosure. Three of the nine exemptions provide possible protection against the release of critical infrastructure information: exemption 1 (national security information); exemption 3 (information exempted by statute); and exemption 4 (confidential business information). Congress has considered several proposals to exempt critical infrastructure information from the FOIA.
Critical Infrastructure Information Disclosure and Homeland Security
This report discusses the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that was passed to ensure by statute citizen access to government information. Nine categories of information may be exempted from disclosure. Three of the nine exemptions provide possible protection against the release of critical infrastructure information: exemption 1 (national security information); exemption 3 (information exempted by statute); and exemption 4 (confidential business information). Congress has considered several proposals to exempt critical infrastructure information from the FOIA.
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy combatants,” Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been returned to Saudi Arabia, and Jose Padilla, who remains in military custody. The report addresses the constitutional and statutory sources that arguably provide authority for the detention of enemy combatants, as well as those that may prevent the exercise of that power with respect to U.S. citizens. The report concludes that historically, even during declared wars, additional statutory authority has been seen as necessary to validate the detention of citizens not members of any armed forces, casting in some doubt the argument that the power to detain is necessarily implied by an authorization to use force. Finally, the report briefly analyzes the Detention of Enemy Combatants Act, H.R. 1029, which would authorize the President to detain U.S. citizens and residents who are determined to be “enemy combatants” in certain circumstances.
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy combatants,” Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been returned to Saudi Arabia, and Jose Padilla, who remains in military custody. The report addresses the constitutional and statutory sources that arguably provide authority for the detention of enemy combatants, as well as those that may prevent the exercise of that power with respect to U.S. citizens. The report concludes that historically, even during declared wars, additional statutory authority has been seen as necessary to validate the detention of citizens not members of any armed forces, casting in some doubt the argument that the power to detain is necessarily implied by an authorization to use force. Finally, the report briefly analyzes the Detention of Enemy Combatants Act, H.R. 1029, which would authorize the President to detain U.S. citizens and residents who are determined to be “enemy combatants” in certain circumstances.
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy combatants,” Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been returned to Saudi Arabia, and Jose Padilla, who remains in military custody. A brief introduction to the law of war pertinent to the detention of different categories of individuals is offered, followed by brief analyses of the main legal precedents invoked to support the President’s actions, as well as Ex parte Milligan, which some argue supports the opposite conclusion. The report concludes that historically, even during declared wars, additional statutory authority has been seen as necessary to validate the detention of citizens not members of any armed forces, casting in some doubt the argument that the power to detain persons arrested in a context other than actual hostilities is necessarily implied by an authorization to use force.
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy combatants,” Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been returned to Saudi Arabia, and Jose Padilla, who remains in military custody. A brief introduction to the law of war pertinent to the detention of different categories of individuals is offered, followed by brief analyses of the main legal precedents invoked to support the President’s actions, as well as Ex parte Milligan, which some argue supports the opposite conclusion. The report concludes that historically, even during declared wars, additional statutory authority has been seen as necessary to validate the detention of citizens not members of any armed forces, casting in some doubt the argument that the power to detain persons arrested in a context other than actual hostilities is necessarily implied by an authorization to use force.
Privacy: Total Information Awareness Programs and Related Information Access, Collection, and Protection Laws
No Description Available.
Privacy: Total Information Awareness Programs and Related Information Access, Collection, and Protection Laws
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-102, H.Rept. 106-434) requires financial institutions to provide their customers with notice of their privacy policies, including those relating to sharing of customer information with affiliated entities. It prohibits sharing personally identifiable customer information with non-affiliated third parties and prohibits financial institutions from providing account numbers to non-affiliated third parties for marketing purposes.
Freedom of Information Act Amendments: 109th Congress
This report discusses the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which was designed to enable any person — individual or corporate, regardless of citizenship — to request, without explanation or justification, presumptive access to existing, identifiable, unpublished, executive branch agency records on any topic.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information
No Description Available.
China and "Falun Gong"
The “Falun Gong” movement has led to the largest and most protracted public demonstrations in China since the democracy movement of 1989. On April 25, 1999, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 adherents assembled in front of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist Party leadership compound, and participated in a silent protest against state repression of their activities. On July 21, 1999, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, fearful of the spread of social unrest, outlawed the movement and began to arrest Falun Gong protesters.
China and "Falun Gong"
“Falun Gong,” also known as “Falun Dafa,”1 combines an exercise regimen with meditation and moral tenets. The “Falun Gong” movement has led to the largest and most protracted public demonstrations in China since the democracy movement of 1989. On April 25, 1999, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 adherents assembled in front of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist Party leadership compound, and participated in a silent protest against state repression of their activities. On July 21, 1999, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, fearful of the spread of social unrest, outlawed the movement and began to arrest Falun Gong protesters.
China and "Falun Gong"
“Falun Gong,” also known as “Falun Dafa,”1 combines an exercise regimen with meditation and moral tenets. The “Falun Gong” movement has led to the largest and most protracted public demonstrations in China since the democracy movement of 1989. On April 25, 1999, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 adherents assembled in front of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist Party leadership compound, and participated in a silent protest against state repression of their activities. On July 21, 1999, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, fearful of the spread of social unrest, outlawed the movement and began to arrest Falun Gong protesters.
China and "Falun Gong"
“Falun Gong,” also known as “Falun Dafa,”1 combines an exercise regimen with meditation and moral tenets. The “Falun Gong” movement has led to the largest and most protracted public demonstrations in China since the democracy movement of 1989. On April 25, 1999, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 adherents assembled in front of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist Party leadership compound, and participated in a silent protest against state repression of their activities. On July 21, 1999, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, fearful of the spread of social unrest, outlawed the movement and began to arrest Falun Gong protesters.
Back to Top of Screen