Answer:
Explanation:
It was about the right of a parent to with hold immunization from a child for religious reasons. The immunizations would have protected the child from diseases described by health officials (I think in the state of MIssissippi).
The religious right appeal goes right back to the First Amendment which guarantees religious freedom. The court found that when a child endangers himself or others by not being protected from deadly diseases, the First Amendment's protection does not apply.
What are the three elements that most crimes have?
4. As of 2018, how many states have a legalized death penalty for capital crimes?
A. 12
B. 30
C. 49
D. 10
27
Explanation:
in the United States, capital punishment is a legal penalty the country at federal level, in 27 States and in American Samoa
Crime is a straightforward, easy topic to research and study.
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
Crime can differ from place to place. A crime in one location may not be a crime in another. On top of that, the reasoning behind committing a crime must be looked upon, and is not the same every single time. On top of that, the law can change, and so crime is ever changing. Remember, crime is breaking the law. If there is no law, then there is no crime.
Answer:
well if its a true or false question it would be false
I want This question deleted after I post This what restaurants are being boycotted That support Trump
Answer:
Mcdonalds
Explanation:
It is unhealthy
Should Remembrance Day be declared an official statutory holiday? Why or why not.
Answer:
Remembrance Day should be declared as an official statutory holiday.
Explanation:
It should be an official statutory holiday because it is one of the most important holidays for our country. This day recalls the soldiers that have died at the end of the first world war. Thousands of people attended events around the country commemorating the war and military sacrifice. It was still a day to mourn the fallen, but there were intermittent pleas to remember the horrors of war and to embrace peace throughout customary ceremonies.
Which verb is a near-synonym for "to discriminate"?
a. to profile
b. to criminalize
c. to extinguish
d. to distinguish
Answer:
b. to criminalize
Explanation:
What was the primary focus of early scholarly work in victimology?
Answer:
Victimology focuses on helping victims heal after a crime, while criminology aims to understand the criminal's motives and the underlying causes of crime. Victimologists are concerned with fostering recovery, while criminologists seek prevention.
Explanation:
Hope this helps!
Can I get brainliest?
Discuss the main things to remember in the preliminary investigation
Answer:The preliminary investigator looks for things like what started the fire like matches, gas, lighters, cigarettes, bombs, anything that will fuel a fire.
Explanation:They also look look for things like the direction of the smoke, the flames, and the distance. When sweeping for bombs they do a room searching sweep.
What role did the United Nations Declaration, the United Nations Charter, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights play in establishing international human rights law?
The United Nations Declaration, the United Nations Charter, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights played major roles in establishing international human rights law all over the world.
Read below for further details
United Nations DeclarationThe United nations declaration an international human rights confers several fundamental rights to everyone.
This Universal Declaration includes civil and political rights, like the right to life, liberty, free speech and privacy. It also includes economic, social and cultural rights, like the right to social security, health and education.
It is on the basis of the UN declaration that individual countries formulated their human rights.
Any violations to the aforementioned rights by the government of any country in the world may result to prosecution at the international criminal court.
Learn more about the UN declaration at https://brainly.com/question/17867374
#SPJ1
Who is the JA director of the ReaperAaron BA?
Answer:
What is JA, ReaperAaron, and BA?
Explanation:
Witness testimony should not be relied heavily on in a courtroom because ______it can be
A-unfair since it is so accurate
B-unimportant to the crime
C-unreliable and inaccurate
D- a distraction for the jurors
Name
Answer: unreliable and inaccurate
Explanation:
another reason why eugenics is wrong is that it is ultimately a form of discrimination, punishing people for traits they are born with and have no control over. for example, if a particular ethnic group, or those with a particular disability, were to be chosen for selective breeding, this would be a clear violation of human rights and could lead to a host of social, economic and medical problems.
The factually incorrect ideology of Eugenics holds that humans can be made better by selectively breeding populations.
Eugenics is a controversial set of ideas and methods intended to improve the genetic makeup of the human population. Eugenicists have historically attempted to alter human cistron pools by removing individuals and groups that they deemed to be inferior or elevating those they deemed to be superior. The word has recently come back into use in bioethical discussions about the application of cutting-edge technologies like CRISPR and genetic screening, sparking a contentious debate over whether or not these technologies should be referred to be life science.
The idea predates the name; circa 400 BC, Plato proposed that people could benefit from selective breeding. Early eugenics proponents in the nineteenth century saw it as a means of improving populations.
To learn more about population please click on the given link: brainly.com/question/1437549
#SPJ4
People agree about how the government
should spend its money.
true or false ?
Answer:
False
Explanation:
Tons of people have different opinions and thats why we have different polictical parties.
judges must abide by precedent of earlier cases unless there is a clear reason to distinguish the current case from predecessors.
Judges are generally required to adhere to the precedent set by earlier cases unless there is a compelling reason to differentiate the current case from previous decisions. This principle, known as stare decisis, is a fundamental aspect of the legal system that promotes consistency, predictability, and respect for established legal principles. Judges must follow the rulings of higher courts within their jurisdiction and are bound by the legal reasoning and outcomes of prior cases, ensuring a degree of stability and uniformity in the interpretation and application of the law.
Stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided," is a foundational principle in common law systems. It establishes that judges should follow the legal precedents set by higher courts within their jurisdiction. This doctrine promotes stability and predictability in the law, as it allows parties to rely on previous decisions when determining their rights and obligations.
When faced with a new case, judges are generally obliged to apply the legal principles and rulings established in earlier cases that are relevant and controlling. This means that if there is a binding precedent, the judge must apply it to the current case, even if they personally disagree with the outcome or reasoning.
However, judges can distinguish the current case from previous decisions if there are clear and substantial differences that warrant a departure from precedent. These differences may include changes in factual circumstances, legal principles, or societal developments that render the precedent inapplicable or unjust. When a judge finds a compelling reason to distinguish the current case from earlier decisions, they may choose not to follow the precedent and instead provide a new interpretation or outcome.
Nevertheless, the principle of stare decisis ensures that the legal system maintains consistency and respects the authority of prior decisions. It encourages judges to be cautious in departing from established precedents, as doing so may disrupt the coherence of the law and create uncertainty. The balance between following precedent and allowing for limited exceptions is crucial for maintaining a fair and predictable legal system.
To learn more about stare decisis click here; brainly.com/question/24596729
#SPJ11
you see someone getting bullied what do you do
A. join the bully
B. go eat lunch and ignore
C. tell a teacher
D. bully the bully
other(and what)
Answer:
c tell a teacher
Explanation:
tell the teacher so that way the teacher can put an end to it and contact the family
Answer:
C and other.
Explanation:
If you tell a trusted adult, they could help you. Also, you could stand up for whoever is getting bullied. On a question on brainly, I'm standing for this kid.
Please give me brainliest!!!!
nevada passes a statute that any 18-wheel truck passing through nevada must meet a clean fuel fleet exhaust emission standard of no more than 2.8 nitrous oxide (nox). the federal statute requirement for such trucks is no more than 3.8 nox.
Nevada has passed a statute that sets a clean fuel fleet exhaust emission standard for 18-wheel trucks passing through the state. According to this statute, the trucks must have a nitrous oxide (NOx) emission level of no more than 2.8.
In comparison, the federal statute requires such trucks to have a NOx emission level of no more than 3.8.
To meet this requirement, 18-wheel trucks passing through Nevada must ensure that their NOx emissions do not exceed 2.8. This can be achieved by using clean fuels or implementing emissions control technologies.
It is important to note that Nevada's statute is more stringent than the federal statute. Therefore, any trucks passing through Nevada must meet the state's emission standard, even if they comply with the federal requirement.
To know more about emission visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31840307
#SPJ11
distinguish social behavior and legal behavior for example
Answer:
What is the difference between ethical behavior and legal behavior?
The distinction is important. Actions are 'legal' if they do not violate the laws or codes of the local government, state, or federal government. ... A formally adopted code of ethics is a legal requirement; when you violate a state or local government code of ethics there are specific consequences.
Explanation:
When inflation is rising 200% it is
Answer:
Hyperinflation
Explanation:
Hope this helps. Cheers!
If criminal behavior is learned, who taught the first criminal?
felonies are generally defined as serious criminal offenses that violate federal law, not state law. true or false
The statement "felonies are generally defined as serious criminal offenses that violate federal law, not state law" is false as A felony is a serious crime that is punishable by a prison term of more than one year.
What are felonies?A felony is a serious crime that is punishable by a prison term of more than one year. The majority of crimes are prosecuted by state and local governments rather than the federal government. As a result, felonies may be prosecuted under both state and federal laws. Individual states have different classifications for criminal acts and what qualifies as a felony.
In contrast, federal law provides a uniform list of criminal activities that are considered felonies. Federal law does not define all of the various felonies that states might specify. Furthermore, some felonies are only classified as such under state law and are not punishable under federal law. Thus, this makes the statement "felonies are generally defined as serious criminal offenses that violate federal law, not state law" false.
To know more about felonies, refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/28657230#
#SPJ11
Complete question:
felonies are generally defined as serious criminal offenses that violate federal law, not state law. true or false
T/F A person who is in possession of a negotiable instrument that is drawn, issued, or indorsed to him or to his order, or to bearer, or in blank is called a(n) holder
The statement "A person who is in possession of a negotiable instrument that is drawn, issued, or indorsed to him or to his order, or to bearer, or in blank is called a(n) holder" is true as it is a true definition of holder.
A "holder" is a person who has a negotiable instrument in their possession that is drawn issued or inscribed to them their order to bearer or in blank. A holder is someone who has the legal right to exercise the privileges and rights attached to a negotiable instrument such as a promissory note a check or a bill of exchange.
The holder may be the initial payee, a subsequent transferee, or a third party who obtains the instrument by endorsement or negotiation. They have the authority to receive payment, transfer the instrument or enforce the terms of it as the holder.
Learn more about negotiable instrument at:
brainly.com/question/3522225
#SPJ4
What are the basic fingerprint patterns?
Answer: Answer is below <3
Explanation: There are eight different kinds of fingerprint patterns, such as radiatal loop, ulnar loop, double loop, central pocket loop, plain arch, tented arch, plain whorl and accidental.
please give brainliest if I’m correct! Tyty <33
complaint includes a short statement of facts that show the party filing the complaint is legally entitled to a remedy. True False
The given statement "complaint includes a short statement of facts that show the party filing the complaint is legally entitled to a remedy" is true the party gets the appropriate justice and relief.
A complaint is any official legal document that outlines the facts and legal justifications (see: cause of action) that the party or parties filing the complaint (the plaintiff(s)) believe are sufficient to support a claim against the party(s) against whom the claim is brought (the defendant(s)), entitling the plaintiff(s) to a remedy (either monetary damages or injunctive relief). For instance, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which set the rules for civil litigation in US courts, state that a civil action is started by the filing or service of a pleading known as a complaint. The same term is used for the same pleading under civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
To know more about complaint here
https://brainly.com/question/4911295
#SPJ4
Annie is a citizen of Texas. She will soon file a lawsuit against Bonnie (a resident of Maine), Carla (a resident of Tennessee), and David (a resident of Texas). Her lawsuit does not involve any federal question. If Annie wishes to sue in a federal court, will the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the case
Based on the information provided, it appears that there is no federal question involved in Annie's lawsuit. Subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts is typically based on federal law, diversity of citizenship, or federal question jurisdiction.
In this case, diversity jurisdiction could potentially be the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in a federal court if certain requirements are met. Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear cases between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold (currently $75,000). In Annie's case, she is a citizen of Texas, and the defendants Bonnie and David are also residents of Texas, so diversity jurisdiction would not apply for these defendants.
However, if Carla, the resident of Tennessee, is a co-defendant along with Bonnie and David, and the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold, diversity jurisdiction may be available for Annie to sue in a federal court. This assumes that there are no other factors or legal issues that would affect the court's jurisdiction.
It's important to consult with a legal professional to get accurate advice tailored to the specific details of the case, as jurisdictional rules can be complex and vary depending on the circumstances.
Learn more about jurisdiction Here-
https://brainly.com/question/10377896
#SPJ11
What are the challenges for forensic scientists in identifying poisons?
Answer:
Taking samples to see what poisons were used and handling the samples
Which passage from the Article best supports the notion that the Federalists primarily agreed to the Bill of Rights because they supported the Constitution?
A.Most states also had a bill of rights and those that didn't at least list individual rights directly in their constitutions. The U.S. Constitution didn't even do that. What it did do was say that the Constitution was the "supreme law of the land" and was superior to state laws and constitutions.
B.Some of these were in the Magna Carta, and others were in the English Bill of Rights, which had been written fewer than 100 years before America's revolution. The rights in these documents were citizens' only protection from a government that could be both abusive and unpredictable and over which citizens had almost no control.
C.The Bill of Rights was a gesture of goodwill that was meant to bring everyone together around the new Constitution. Above all, the goal was to see the United States become a nation of unified people.
D.So not only did the Constitution fail to protect individual rights, but it also overruled the protections in state constitutions. It seemed that a bill of rights would be needed to ensure that the federal government could not overstep its bounds.
The Article best supports the notion that the Federalists primarily agreed to the Bill of Rights because they supported the Constitution is that, most states also had a bill of rights and those that didn't at least list individual rights directly in their constitutions.
The supporters of the Constitution, who were the Federalists, thought that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and even dangerous. So, the authors of The Federalist Papers, including James Madison, argued for the ratification of the Constitution without Bill of Rights.
Federalists argued that the Constitution was not in need of a Bill of Rights, as the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government.
Hence, option A is correct.
To learn more about the Bill of Rights here:
https://brainly.com/question/10618576
#SPJ1
How is the Democratic Party similar in beliefs to the Federalists?
O Both strongly opposed slavery.
O Both were formed because of a dispute.
O Both supported a strong central government.
O Both were organized on federal and state levels.
Answer:
C is the answer
Explanation:
Both supported a strong central government is the Democratic Party similar in beliefs to the Federalists. The correct option is C.
Who were Federalists mostly?The Federalist party consisted primarily of wealthy businessmen, large landowners in the North, and conservative small farmers and entrepreneurs. Geographically speaking, they were mainly in New England, with a significant portion in the Middle Atlantic states.
While the modern Republican party and the Anti-Federalists share a firm conviction as defenders of individual state rights, the modern Democratic party and the Federalists share a belief in a strong central government.
There were many parallels between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Both favored this young nation and understood that it required a government. Both favored giving Congress the authority to declare war and draft treaties.
Thus, the ideal selection is option C.
Learn more about Federalists here:
https://brainly.com/question/29496480
#SPJ6
thành viên hopej danh có thể là cá nhân hoặc tổ chức có tư cách pháp nhân là đúng hay sai
Thật. Một cá nhân hoặc tổ chức sở hữu các quyền pháp lý riêng biệt và riêng biệt, chẳng hạn như cá nhân, công ty hợp danh hoặc công ty. Một thực thể, trong số những thứ khác, có thể sở hữu tài sản, tham gia kinh doanh, ký kết hợp đồng, nộp thuế, khởi kiện và bị kiện
what is the phrase for thece rrof scientific research in gh
Answer:
Never give up on the grind
Explain how ethical dilemmas are evaluated and resolved, what factors are involved?
Answer:
By mutual understanding and cooperation.
Explanation:
Ethical dilemmas are evaluated by the individual when they work for their own interest and affect the other individual. For example, by taking the credit of other's work. In this example, one individual takes the advantage of the situation which is totally unethical. Such type of ethical dilemmas are resolved by the mutual understanding and cooperation of the two parties. Factors that are involved in creating ethical dilemmas are achieving personal goals and make advantage of a situation for your own profit and interest.