from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Tending to violate; of or relating to violation.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. Violating, or tending to violate.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- Violating; tending to or causing violation.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- adj. violating or tending to violate or offend against
Sorry, no etymologies found.
Alabama's law, which withholds a host of rights from illegal aliens, was overwhelmingly upheld by a federal district court as constitutional and not violative of any preemption right of the federal government.
Thus, if the HCR insurance mandate is violative of the 1A federally, it would stand to reason that state car insurance mandates, through the 14th Amendment, would also be unconstitutional.
"A penalty with such negligible returns to the state (is) patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment," he wrote.
If you have this problem in the future, you are welcome to email me and I'll post your comment for you if it is not abusive or otherwise violative of the comments policy.
MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) is a cruel, painful, mutilating, torturous, violative act without valid medical benefit that not only contravenes the UN Charter but also violates every principle of human kindness and medical ethics in every civilized country in the world.
League of Women Voters removed the comment as being violative of its guidelines.
Of 23 pesticides designated by the EPA and FDA as high risk, the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service only tests for one -- and in just six months, four carcasses with "violative levels of veterinary drugs" were released onto the public dinner plate.
This legislation reinvigorated the CPSC and established a strong consumer product safety net that the American public demanded after the "Year of the Recall" in 2007, when millions of violative toys were recalled from American consumers.
In a landmark judgement, the Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah of the Delhi High Court, along with Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, ruled in favor of the petitioner, Naz Foundation, and held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in its current form was violative of the of the constitutional provisions of Article 21, Article 14, and Article 15, “insofar it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private”.
If the mandate is within the Commerce Clause, and not violative of due process, then it clearly does not upset the structure of federalism set by the Constitution, since the Constitution itself, including the Commerce Clause, defines that structure.