D.C. Revenue Act of 1971: Hearing, Ninety-second Congress, First Session, on H.R. 11341 ... November 16, 1971
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971 - 249페이지
다른 사람들의 의견 - 서평 쓰기
서평을 찾을 수 없습니다.
기타 출판본 - 모두 보기
additional Administration Agency amended amount annual appropriated assistance associated authorized base basis benefits bill Board budget building burden Capital central cities CHAIRMAN Commissioner Committee commuters costs County Court Department Development District Government District of Columbia earned economic Education effect employees EMPLOYMENT equal estimated exemption existing EXPENDITURES Federal payment fiscal Functions funds grant Health hearing higher Highways Hospitals House improve increase interest issued jurisdictions LIBRARY OF CONGRESS live loan major Maryland Mayor WASHINGTON metropolitan area million Motor needs Office Operating percent persons Police population positions present problems programs proposed protection Public question reason received reciprocal income tax rent request residents respect responsibility revenue Sales Sanitary Senator INOUYE share sources STAROBIN statement taxation thousands Total United UTILITY vehicle Wage welfare
238 페이지 - The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.
238 페이지 - An Act To provide additional revenue for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
25 페이지 - ... act may be prosecuted and punished in the same manner and with the same effect as if this act had not been passed.
230 페이지 - In this case petitioner was served the same day as the garnishee. She nonetheless claims that the Wisconsin garnishment procedure violates that due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment, in that notice and an opportunity to be heard are not given before the in rem seizure of the wages. What happens in Wisconsin is that the clerk of the court issues the summons at the request of the creditor's lawyer; and it is the latter who by serving the garnishee sets in motion the machinery whereby the...
237 페이지 - We conclude therefore that appellants in these cases do not use and have no need to use the one-year requirement for the governmental purposes suggested. Thus, even under traditional equal protection tests a classification of welfare applicants according to whether they have lived in the State for one year would seem irrational and unconstitutional.