The NTSB's revocation of Michael Manin's flight certification without considering its own policy on evaluating an applicant's understanding of disclosure requirements could be arbitrary and capricious, although other factors or legal standards might justify their action.
The question at hand involves an evaluation of the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) actions in the context of administrative law. The issue is whether the NTSB's action in revoking Michael Manin's flight certification, for not disclosing minor misdemeanors, was arbitrary and capricious. Under administrative law, an agency action is considered arbitrary and capricious if it is not based on consideration of the relevant factors, is a clear error of judgment, or follows from a decision-making process that lacks coherence. If the NTSB has a policy to consider an applicant's understanding of what is required to be disclosed and deviated from this policy without explanation, that could be seen as arbitrary and capricious action. However, there might also be other factors or legal standards at play, such as the requirement of pilots to have no convictions of a significant misdemeanor, which may have affected the NTSB's decision.
A person who illegally accesses or enters another person's or a company's computer system to obtain information or to steal money is known as a _______.
a. backer
b. reacher
c. hacker
d. trespasser
e. illicit user
Answer:
A person who illegally accesses or enters another person's or a company's computer system to obtain information or to steal money is known as a Hacker. Correct answer is C. Hacker.
Since 1. A person who uses computers to access data without authorization.
2. A person or thing that is roughly hacking or cutting.
Explanation:
Hacking refers to activities aimed at compromising digital devices, such as computers, smartphones, tablets, and even whole networks.
And while hacking may not always be for malicious purposes, nowadays most hacking references and hackers characterize it / them as cybercriminals ' unlawful activity — motivated by financial gain, protest, gathering (spying) information, and even just for the "fun" of the challenge.
A person who illegally accesses or enters another's computer system, typically for malicious purposes, like extracting information or stealing money, is known as a hacker.
Explanation:A person who illegally accesses or enters another person's or a company's computer system with the intent of accessing information or stealing money is known as a hacker. Hackers often exploit weaknesses in security systems or use coding and software skills to bypass security measures, with the intent of unauthorized intrusion. In the realm of cybercrime, hacking can cause significant damage to individuals or businesses from financial loss to privacy invasion.
Learn more about Hacker here:https://brainly.com/question/32413644
#SPJ3
In order to initiate a civil lawsuit in a federal court or in a state court, what should the first thing that you should do?
Answer:
In order to initiate a civil lawsuit in a federal court or in a state court, you should prepare the complaint which describe your damage or injury; your request to compensate for the damages/
Explanation:
The process of a civil lawsuit is guided on website of United State Courts; in section of Civil case.
A federal civil case involves a legal dispute between two or more parties. In this case, it's your dispute so you have to prepare a complaint/ report for what we are asking from defendant for what they made you affected illegally. So that the court have reason to initiate a civil lawsuit.
Sarah believes that she was rejected for a position at Trekking Travel Agency due to her race. Sarah files a suit against Trekking Travel Agency under Title VII on the basis of disparate-treatment discrimination. Sarah must show all of the following except that_____________.
Answer: option d
Explanation:
This law suite becomes void if Sarah is unable to bring an alibi in the company of victims who are qualified to work in the company but suffered the same fate as she did to back her claims against trekking travel
Answer:
D. Other people of her race hold similar positions with other employers
Explanation:
The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is an act that forbids potential job employers from making unjust prejudicial distinction in the treatment of employees and potential job applicants on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.
Title VII is designed to ensure that employment decisions are made based on objective, job-related criteria.
To prove Title VII discrimination, she must show that
She is qualified for the applied position She is a member of a protected class She suffered an unfavorable employment actionShe was subjected to an adverse employment action despite being qualifiedHaving highlighted these, showing that the city allowed other people of her race to hold similar positions with other employers raises an inference of discriminatory action .
Which of the following was created specifically to combat white-collar crime?
a. The Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act
b. The False Claims Act
c. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
d. The White-Collar Enforcement Act
e. None of these
Answer:
c. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Explanation:
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (also Sarbox or SOX) is a United States federal law that created new requirements for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. This was enacted in 2002 with the purpose of combating white-collar crime. This act was created due to the scandals that surrounded several firms, such as Enron and WorldCom during that time period.
For laws against shoplifting, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle.
One of the grounds for justification of laws is the harm principle. The harm principle states that the actions of individuals should be prevented when these actions harm others. This is known as the harm principle.
In the case of shoplifting, we can argue that this action harms others. When we shoplift, we damage the owner of the store, as this means that he will lose out on the profits that would have come from the sale of a product. Moreover, this means that other people who were willing to pay for the product will also lose the opportunity to enjoy it. Therefore, shoplifting should be prohibited according to the harm principle.
What limits has the supreme court placed on gerrymandering
Answer: The Federal government Authority judges has never been to correct partisan of redrawing electoral district to get electoral advantage. the Supreme Court is used to judging based on a 5-to-4 decision, which allows politicians to only draw electoral districts that brought about their power, unless there are laws preventing them from doing so, which might be congress/state laws.
The conservative majority decision overruled lower courts and also refused two constitutional challenges to partisan district chats.
Answer:
When the boundaries of an electoral constituency are manipulated so as to give advantage to one party of class it is known as Gerrymandering.
"Packing" which means localizing the opposing party's voting power in one district to enervate their voting power in other districts and "cracking" which refers to the art of weakening the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts are two major methods used in gerrymandering.
Explanation:
One example of a gerrymandered US district would be North Carolina's 12th congressional district. Between 2003 and 2016 North Carolina's 12 congressional district was packed. The district has heavily dominated by African-American democrats.
It is the position of the US Supreme Court that redistricting which discriminates on racial or ethnic grounds lacks constitutional backing. However, it has been slow to issue a similarly-strong ruling for partisan redistricting. It is the decision of the Court that unrestrained partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
Cheers!
Sleazeco, Inc. employee Harold Hapless died after several weeks of exposure to certain toxic chemical fumes at the Sleazeco plant. The chemicals were in open vats and could not reasonably be avoided by Hapless and other Sleazeco employees. The local prosecutor filed criminal charges against Sleazeco, its president, and its plant manager in connection with Sleazeco's death. The prosecutor alleges that Sleazeco's president and plant manager knew of the dangerous nature of the fumes but neither warned Hapless and other Sleazeco employees nor took other action to lessen the danger. Which of the following is an accurate statement?a. Sleazeco cannot be held criminally liable for Hapless's death because a corporation cannot form a criminal intent.b. The president and the plant manager cannot be held criminally liable for Hapless's death under theories of strict and vicarious liability.c. If Sleazeco can prove that it used due diligence in trying to prevent the president and the plant manager from committing a crime, the corporation will have a defense against criminal liability.d. Sleazeco may be held criminally liable for the acts of the president and the plant manager if they were acting within the scope of their employment and for the benefit of the corporation.
Answer and explanation:
After carefully reading the situation presented in this statement, it is correct to say that the accurate resolution would be that Sleazeco may be held criminally liable for the acts of the president and the plant manager if they were acting within the scope of their employment and for the benefit of the corporation.
Sleazeco may be criminally liable for the president's and plant manager's actions as they acted within their scope of employment and for the company's benefit, thus implicating the corporation in vicarious liability. Hence, correct option D.
The question at hand concerns whether Sleazeco may be criminally liable for the death of Harold Hapless due to exposure to toxic chemical fumes at the plant. Given that the president and plant manager of Sleazeco were aware of the danger and neither warned the employees nor took action to mitigate the danger, there is room for vicarious liability. The correct statement is that Sleazeco may be held criminally liable for the acts of the president and the plant manager if they were acting within the scope of their employment and for the benefit of the corporation. Key precedents can be observed in cases like Commonwealth v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. and U.S. v. L.E. Meyers Co., which deal with the principles of corporate criminal liability and the concept of 'willful' conduct as it applies to corporations. The Model Penal Code notes that a corporation may be convicted of offenses performed by an agent within the scope of their employment.
Cindy’s air conditioning compressor makes such a racket when operating that Tom, whose bedroom window is but 15 feet away from the compressor, can hardly sleep most nights. Tom has complained to Cindy and has asked her to move the compressor but Cindy has just ignored all of Tom’s concerns. In order to get some sleep Tom might have to sue Cindy for:
a. Invasion of privacyb. Public nuisancec. Intentional infliction of emotional distressd. Trespasse. None of the above ()
Answer:
I think the answer is public nuisance.
Explanation:
I believe this because it is not an invasion of privacy at all, it can't be trespassing because she is not trespassing, it is not intentional even though she did ignore your claims.
Hope this helps.
Answer:
None of the above
Explanation:
Tom cannot sue Cindy for any of the alternatives listed above. That's because the noise comes from the operation of Cindy's air conditioning, which is inside her house. In addition, she has no control over this noise.
However, tom can contact the supervisor of his building and explain what is happening, the superintendent, in turn, must take the necessary steps to remedy the problem.
The library of congress is the responsibility of which governmental branch?
Answer:
The Library of Congress is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch.
Explanation:
The Library of Congress is the US National Library. It is located in three buildings in Washington and is the largest library in the world in terms of shelf meters and book volume.
Founded in 1800, the library is the oldest cultural institution in the United States. On August 24, 1814, British forces burned down the Capitol building where the library was located and destroyed the library's collection of 3,000 works. On January 30, 1815, Congress approved the purchase of Thomas Jefferson's personal collection of 6,487 books for $ 23,950. In 2007, the Library of Congress employed 3,691 people and had a budget of over $ 600 million.
Jodi finds her brother-in-law, Cameron, irritating, but she can't avoid interacting with him because he is married to her sister. This reflects which characteristic of conflict?
A. Incompatible goals
B. An expressed struggle
C. Interdependence
D. Inevitability
The given scenario reflects Interdependence characteristic of conflicts.
Option C
Explanation:The characteristic described here is interdependence. As it is very clear to see that Jodi's sister is married to Cameron. She might not be dependent on Cameron directly but when it comes to her sister she is dependent directly. Clearly establishing a state of interdependency.
This is a very common issue and happens to many people where one can not show contempt to the opposite person as that person is somewhat related to the person which might have a grave affect on other relations as well. Sometimes such interdependency becomes very critical and needs to be resolved soon.
Junk Food. Mary Dogood, a member of the school board in ABC County, is appalled at the amount of junk food in the schools. She convinces the state legislature to pass an ordinance that no stores may sell any unhealthy, junk food within 500 feet of any school or day care center. A teacher of political science raises the issue of whether the regulation is valid and is told that it is a valid exercise of the jurisdiction's police power to protect its citizens. Convenience stores balk at the regulation and challenge it in court. What concept is addressed in regard to the reference to "police power"?
a. The residual powers retained by each state to safeguard the health and welfare of its citizenry
b. The residual powers retained by the federal government to enforce valid laws and regulations
c. The power granted to local government to enter residencies without a search warrant
d. The power granted to state governments to tax for the purposes of having law enforcement
e. The powers granted to state government to imprison citizens of other states who commit crimes within a state
The residual powers retained by each state to safeguard the health and welfare of its citizens is the concept to address in regard to the reference to police power.
Option a
Explanation:
The state's main purpose is to safeguard and protect its citizens from any harm that may be coming in their way. It is there for the welfare of its citizens and for their own good. The state protects its citizens from harms that can come in many ways. It can also impose civil laws and public policies, or police support to cope up with any difficulties.
In the given example, Mary Dogood imposes a ban on junk foods within 500 feet from the school, for a good cause that would save the children from indulging themselves in unhygienic and unhealthy foods, that may harm them and make them fall ill. The police power exercised its role to impose this law correctfully to protect the citizens.
The policy that kept the united states out of the war for three years was called
Answer:
The neutrality policy.
Explanation:
When the war blowed, President Wilson declared that the United States will follow a strict neutrality policy where it wouldn´t ally with other countries. This policy lasted three years.
Difference between first degree and second degree murder
Answer:
The main difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder lies in the previous planification of the murder, made by the person who commits the crime.
In first-degree murder, the murderer plans the crime: he is aware of what he is going to do, and plans the details of how and when to carry out the homicide.
On the other hand, in second-degree murder, although there is also intention and discernment regarding the crime that is being committed, it is not a planned act: it is a voluntary action, but not premeditated.
Which of the following was passed largely in response to business scandals of the 2000s, such as Enron?
a. RICO
b. The False Claims Act
c. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
d. The Medicare Recovery Act
e. The Healthcare Fraud Act
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed largely in response to business scandals of the 2000s, such as Enron.
Option c
Explanation:
The Sarbanes Oxley act was passed in 2002 to that helps the investors to escape fraudulent financing. It made strict reforms and actions to anyone violating any rule and engaging in fraudulent activities.
The Sarbanes Oxley act came into existence in 2002 due to the various fraudulent scandals that happened in the 2000's like the Enron Corporation, world.com and many more like them. It imposed strict rules on auditors, accountants, and were forced to keep their records and avoid any frauds.
Describe the process through which the court grants a writ of certiorari
A writ of certiorari is granted by the Supreme Court through a process where at least four justices agree to hear an appeal from a lower court, considering the significance and conflict of the legal issues involved. Clerks review cases in a cert. pool, and if granted, the case is scheduled for review with submission of briefs and possible oral arguments.
Explanation:The process through which the court grants a writ of certiorari involves several steps. The writ is an order by the Supreme Court calling up the records from the lower courts for review. Most cases reach the Supreme Court as appeals from lower courts, typically the U.S. Court of Appeals or a state's supreme court. A party seeking review requests a writ of certiorari, and the petition is then considered through a cert. pool, where clerks review and make recommendations on the cases.
Regarding decisions on whether to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court applies its Rule 10, prioritizing cases that resolve conflicts among lower courts or address important questions of law. The Court employs the 'Rule of Four', which means that at least four of the nine justices must agree to hear the case. If granted, the case is placed on the Court's docket, briefs are submitted, and eventually, oral arguments may be scheduled if necessary.
Factors influencing the Court's decision to grant certiorari include whether the question presented is significant, whether there are conflicting decisions on the issue among lower courts, or if decisions by an appeals or state court conflict with established precedent. Certain cases with special urgency can also be fast-tracked. If the writ is not granted, the lower court's decision stands. Should certiorari be granted, justices hear the case after reading the briefs, filing amicus curiae briefs, and conducting oral arguments as required.
Which of the following is a fact-finding jury that determines if a defendant is guilty or not guilty?
a. A grand jury
b. A petit jury
c. A deciding jury
d. An empowered jury
e. A true bill jury
Answer:
b. a petit jury
Explanation:
Which of the following is true regarding the grand jury system?
a. Under the U.S. Constitution, a grand jury is required in state court felony cases
b. Under the U.S. Constitution, a grand jury is required in federal felony cases
c. The right to a grand jury may not be waived by a defendant
d. Under the U.S. Constitution, a grand jury is required in state court felony cases and in federal felony cases and the right to a grand jury may not be waived by a defendant
e. Under the U.S. Constitution, a grand jury is required in both state and federal felony cases, but a defendant may waive the right to review by a grand jury
Under the U.S. Constitution, a grand jury is required in both state and federal felony cases, but a defendant may waive the right to review by a grand jury is true regarding the grand jury system.
Option E
Explanation:
A jury of law entitled to take legal action and investigate potential criminal conduct is a grand jury— a group of citizens — that determines whether criminal charges must be lodged. A large jury can call or witness physical evidence.
America and Liberia are the only nations that have grand juries but which have historically been used by other common law jurisdictions. Most others now use a different procedure that do not include a jury. This is the preliminary hearing.
In federal cases, an accused person charged with a felony has a constitutional right to a prosecution by a grand jury. Nonetheless, if the accused waives that right, a criminal prosecution may continue with evidence.
The United States Court of Justice ruled that a grand jury's conviction is not an essential right and states are therefore unable to provide grand juries.
A court ruling against rapper biz markie in 1991 set a precedent requiring hip-hop producers to
Answer:
The answer is obtain permission to use sampled sources.
Explanation:
A court ruling against rapper biz markie in 1991 set a precedent requiring hip-hop producers to obtain permission to use sampled sources.
Final answer:
A court ruling in 1991 against rapper Biz Markie established the need for hip-hop producers to clear samples of copyrighted material used in their recordings, significantly affecting the music production process.
Explanation:
The court ruling against rapper Biz Markie in 1991 had far-reaching implications for the music industry, particularly for hip-hop producers. This legal decision set an important precedent, requiring producers to clear samples of copyrighted material that they used in their productions. Prior to this ruling, the practice of sampling in hip-hop was largely unregulated, leading to widespread use of samples without permission from the original copyright holders.
Following this court decision, hip-hop producers could no longer freely use portions of other artists' recordings in their own music without obtaining the necessary clearances. This ruling has had a significant impact on the creative process and the economics of producing hip-hop music, as obtaining rights can be complex and costly.
How does casework affect members attention to legislation
Answer:
Case study enables the development of awareness of a problem, which leads to more time and resources being focused on related legislation.
Explanation:
In general terms, the case study seeks to analyze a theme observed in reality, explaining how and why it occurs. In addition to identifying the factors that contribute to the theme in question materialize. In this sense, a case study proposes to identify a problem, analyze the evidence, develop logical arguments, evaluate and propose solutions. This allows members of legislation to focus more time and resources on related legislation.
This is one of countless types of research, and it uses qualitative data collection, and this collection can occur through one or more methods, and does not follow a strict line of investigation.
Heidi decided to make extra money by offering to do investments for her friends for a fee. She actually did no investing, but used the funds from new friends to pay off earlier enrollees. This worked well for a while, but her scheme came to light when her supply of new friends came to an end. She is guilty of which of the following practices?
a. Operating a Ponzi scheme
b. Operating a bait and switch scheme
c. Account kiting
d. Pretexting
e. Defalcation
Answer:
d. pretexting
Explanation:
pretexting is an ecxuse to do something that is not accurate
The basic purpose of tort law is to punish criminal wrongdoers. True or False
The basic purpose of tort law is to punish criminal wrongdoers is false.
Explanation: The tort law broadly enumerates the punishments against civil wrong committed by an individual or a group of individuals. These 'wrongs' involve acts like trespassing, sale of hazardous products without the necessary prior permissions, causing mental harm to someone, possessing carelessness, etc. The origin of tort laws is found in the ancient Roman laws that were implemented in order to punish the ones found guilty in behavioral crimes.Ed goes door-to-door selling magazine subscriptions. Ed knows, however, that he is simply taking money for subscriptions and has absolutely no intention of ever arranging for the provision of magazines. Which of the following offenses, if any, has he committed?
a. Defalcation
b. False Entry
c. False token
d. False pretense
e. Ponzi scheme
Answer:
e. Ponzi scheme
Explanation:
e. Ponzi scheme
(e) Ponzi Scheme.
Ponzi Scheme:A Ponzi scheme is a type of scam that entices investors and rewards, previous investors, with earnings from more current investors using their money. The Ponzi scheme, so named after the Italian businessman Charles Ponzi, deceives victims into thinking that their gains are the result of successful business ventures (such as sales of products or wise investments), while keeping them in the dark about the true source of the money. As long as new investors keep putting money in and the majority of investors continue to believe in the fictitious assets they are supposed to possess, a Ponzi scheme can continue to provide the impression that it is a viable business.Therefore, the correct option is (e) A Ponzi scheme.
Know more about Ponzi scheme here:
https://brainly.com/question/14550688
#SPJ2
Which court in the federal system is the court of last resort
Answer:
United States Supreme Court
Explanation:
The United States Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the federal court system. Each of the states and the District of Columbia has at least one supreme court, or court of last resort. Oklahoma and Texas both have two courts of last resort, one for civil appeals and one for criminal appeals.
Because U.S. laws tightly regulate the disposal of toxic materials from the thousands of electronic devices discarded each year, some companies have contracted with companies in China and other countries to dispose of these products. Unfortunately, the lack of regulation in these countries has resulted in unsafe disposal practices, creating toxic waste areas where drinking water and soil are no longer safe. This situation illustrates the concept of:
Answer: Social dumping
Explanation:
Social dumping is employers ' method of using cheaper labor than is usually available at their production or sales site. In the latter case, it hires migrant workers; in the former, it transfers production to a low-wage country or area. Therefore, the company will save money and potentially increase its profit. Systemic analysis indicates that governments are therefore forced to participate in a so-called social policy system by increasing their labor and social standards in order to ease labor costs for businesses and maintain business activity within their jurisdiction.
Entities derived from social dumping:
companies in importing countries Participants in importing countries Customers in importing countries Industry in importing markets Employment in exporting countries Government and investment in exporting countriesOrganization of petroleum exporting countries definition
Answer: Organization of petroleum exporting countries(OPEC), is a permanent intergovernmental organization of oil-exporting developing nations that focuses on the coordination and unification of the petroleum policies of its Member Countries.
Explanation:
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in September 1960 in Baghdad, Iraq, with the signing of an agreement by five countries namely Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to coordinate the petroleum policies of its members and to provide member states with technical and economic aid. OPEC is a cartel that aims to manage the supply of oil in an effort to set the price of oil on the world market, and also, to avoid fluctuations that might affect the economies of both producing and purchasing countries. The chief executive officer of OPEC is its secretary general. His Excellency Mohammad Sanusi Barkindo of Nigeria was appointed to the position for a three-year term of office on August 1, 2016, and re-elected for another three-year on July 2, 2019.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a cartel consisting of 14 of the world’s major oil-exporting nations. Countries that belong to OPEC include Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela (the five founders), plus the United Arab Republic, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, and five other countries.
OPEC is a cooperative of oil-exporting countries that collectively regulate oil supply and prices to ensure stable income for members and stable oil prices for consumers. It was established in 1960 and has been influential in the global energy market, especially during the 1970s oil embargoes.
Explanation:The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an international cooperative established in 1960 by oil-exporting nations. OPEC's primary goal is to coordinate the petroleum policies of its member countries and to provide a stable source of income for the member states while supplying oil to consumers at a stable price. The impact of OPEC has been profound, especially in the 1970s, when it used its collective power to enforce oil embargoes that caused energy crises and led to increased oil prices globally. While most of the member countries are in the Middle East, others like Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, and Ecuador also play a significant role.
OPEC currently has 15 member countries, which as of 2018 included Algeria, Angola, Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. These countries have a substantial amount of control over global oil supply since they can influence global production through production quotas. This has allowed OPEC to have a major influence on oil prices worldwide.
Bill has been convicted of aggravated assault after seriously injuring Mike. At sentencing, the judge states that Bill is required to reimburse Mike for all the medical bills that Mike’s insurance did not cover. The judge is focusing on which goal of sentencing
Answer:
The answer is Restoration Justice.
Explanation:
The judge is focusing on Restoration Justice. Because the restoration seeks to make the victim and the community whole again. The healing of the victim and the community includes victims' assistance initiatives and legislation supporting victims' compensation. The judge is requiring Bill to pay a compesation to Mike.
Hardee's and Carl's Jr. are fast food restaurants. Hardee's operates in the Midwest and Carl's Jr. operates on the West Coast. The two companies decide to merge. Is there a strong chance that the government will block this merger?
Answer:No, the chances that the government will block it is slim
Explanation:
The two restaurants decided to MERGE. MERGING in business means that there is incorporation of two or more companies together to form a single entity in order to achieve further efficiencies and productivities.
There are three (3) main types of merging and they are: HORRIZONTAL MERGING( this increases market share), VERTICAL MERGING(this exploit existing synergies) and finally, the CONCENTRIC MERGING(this expand productivities).
With the two restaurants, it might be because of the the three(3) types of merges.
The government will NOT block the merging because merging because of MARKET EXTENSION does not receive much scrutiny from the government.
How does the case of tinker v. Des moines school district illustrate constitutional provisions for limited government in the protection of individual rights?
Answer:
First, Tinker v. Des Moines shows how a commitment to individual freedom is reflected in the interpretation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed in this case that the right to free speech is more relevant than the need to maintain order for government entities, such as universities. Even children have the right to free speech to be protected by school officials.
Secondly, the Tinker ruling confirmed that the First Amendment's symbolic speech merits protection. Symbolic speech describes a wide range of nonverbal actions: marching, holding signs of protest, holding sit-ins, wearing political slogans with t-shirts, or even burning flags. All these ways of speech are protected by First Amendment.
Explanation:
The court ruled that free speech rights of the students had been violated by the school district. The bracelets were a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines demonstrates the principle of limited government upholding individual First Amendment rights in public schools, establishing that student expression cannot be suppressed without showing substantial interference with school operations.
Explanation:The case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District centers on the principle of limited government and the protection of individual rights, specifically the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression within the context of a public school. The court decided that the wearing of armbands as a form of protest by students Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt did not cause a 'material and substantial interference' with the operation of the school, thus affirming the students' rights to free expression. This case set a precedent that students do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter school property.
This landmark case highlights the balancing act between maintaining school discipline and respecting students' constitutional rights. It illustrates that public schools, as government entities, cannot infringe upon individual rights without adequate justification. The ruling reinforces the idea that Constitutional rights must be observed by limited government, even within the educational system, where certain restrictions apply to ensure the proper functioning of the institution and the well-being of all students.
Ordinarily, to obtain an arrest warrant, a law enforcement agent must demonstrate that there is ______ that a suspect committed or is planning to commit a crime
a. likely cause
b. suspected cause
c. certainty
d. probable cause
e. information
Answer:
d
Explanation:
The powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution
Answer:
The powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.
Explanation:
The foregoing is set forth in the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution whereby it is implied that the powers that are not granted to the US Federal Government belong to the states. These are also known as reserved powers. The purpose of this provision is to define a division of power between the federal government and state governments. Therefore, the power of the federal government is limited.