United States v. Lara was a 2004 United States Supreme Court case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. In the 1880s, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, divesting tribes of criminal jurisdiction in regards to several felony crimes. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Duro v. Reina that an Indian tribe did not have the authority to criminally try an Indian who was not a member of that tribe. The following year, Congress passed a law that stated that Indian tribes, due to their inherent sovereignty, had the authority to try non-member Indians for crimes committed within the tribe's territorial jurisdiction. The defendant, Billy Jo Lara, was charged for acts that were criminal offenses under both the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe's laws and the federal United States Code. Lara pleaded guilty to the tribal charges, but claimed double jeopardy against the federal charges. The Court (majority opinion writer Stephen Breyer pictured) held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns, and therefore separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. (Full article...)
... that the SingaporeHigh Court(pictured) can grant the remedy of declaringvoid a law inconsistent with the Constitution enacted before its commencement, even though Article 4 seems to say otherwise?
Qasr Kharana is a desert castle in Jordan. Completed by 710 C.E., the building survived several earthquakes before being restored in the late 1970s. It is open to the public and has become the most visited such castle in Jordan.
This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001 (2001), it currently contains 4,181,794 articles.
Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.
