Tata Institute of Fundamental Research | Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union | Fundamental analysis | Nigerien National Commission on Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties | Fundamental unit | Fundamental lemma of calculus of variations | Fundamental Fysiks Group | El Camino Fundamental High School |
Following the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam, sanctions imposed on an EU Member State for a serious and persistent breach of fundamental rights requires Parliament's assent under Article 7 of the EU Treaty.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) also contains this fundamental right in section 12 and it is to be found again in Article Four (quoting the European Convention verbatim) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000).
According to Kenneth T. Jackson, the Flushing Remonstrance was remarkable for four reasons: it articulated a fundamental right that is as basic to American freedom as any other, the authors backed up their words with actions by sending it to an official not known for tolerance, they stood up for others and were articulating a principle that was of little discernible benefit to themselves, and the language of the remonstrance is as beautiful as the sentiments they express.
In 1987, the District Court determined that laws that treat homosexuals as a class must be reviewed under the federal courts' heightened scrutiny standard because homosexuals are a "quasi-suspect class", noting that Bowers v. Hardwick held that only that "under the due process clause lesbians and gay men have no fundamental right to engage in sodomy".
In fact, Justice Hugo Black once noted that, in America, the defendant “has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it!’” By limiting the powers of the police and prosecutors, the Bill of Rights safeguards freedom.
On January 20, 2005, District Court Judge Gary L. Lancaster dropped the charges, agreeing with the defense that the federal anti-obscenity statutes were unconstitutional, as they violated a person's fundamental right to possess and view whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.