Answer:
B. So that you will be forced to look behind the car for an approaching bicyclist.
Explanation:
This is the main reason why you should open your door with your right hand, as opposed to your left. Most people are used to opening their door with their left hand, as this is easier. However, the advantage of opening the door with your right hand is that it forces you to twist your body and look behind you. By doing so, you are more likely to notice approaching bicyclists, and thus, it might help you avoid accidents.
Answer:
do the challenge in brainly it gives u points !!!!
Explanation:
Answer and Explanation:
The 14th amendment cannot be a violation of the concept of federalism, as federalism is in accordance with the concepts covered in the Bill of Rights and only allows for the separation and sharing of powers between state and federal governments if this does not hurt the concepts covered by the Bill of Rights. These concepts are strengthened with the 14th amendment and for this reason, we should not consider that this amendment could harm the concept of federalism.
The ability of a state to create its own laws must be maintained even if people can move from one state to another, because this allows states to organize and maintain order in their territories, independent of their inhabitants. In this case, the individual who is moving from state to state must adapt to the laws of the territory, so that he/she can remain in the place.
Answer:
b. upper middle class
Explanation:
We know working class, is the regular, average class and is not the rare individuals that are considered rich or high income. We also know it can't be working poor, as poor is pretty much the complete opposite of high-income or in other words rich. Upper middle class seems to be the most valid option as upper means higher up, more richer, and higher-income then the average class.
Answer:
As a judge, you should be required to pick from a limited range of sentences for each offense.
Explanation:
Some may argue that having passed a difficult bar exam to be licensed to practice law, spending years prosecuting or defending criminal cases, and being involved in thousands of criminal trials should qualify a judge to be free to make any sentencing decision they want—but this notion is incorrect.
Although judges tend to be extremely experienced and highly intelligent, granting judges too much leeway in sentencing decisions leads to issues like sentencing disparity (disproportionate sentencing in similar cases). Before the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984, sentencing disparities within the United States justice system were largely unaddressed, so the SRA sought to address sentencing disparities with the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal sentences. However, the SRA limited the power of judges to a great extent, an issue that would be addressed in the <em>United States v. Booker</em> (2005) Supreme Court case, with the court ruling the sentencing guidelines imposed by the SRA be deemed advisory rather than mandatory. What can be learned from these legal developments is that sentencing guidelines are necessary for reducing disparity within the justice system, but should remain advisory so as to not place any excessive limitations on the authority or sentencing liberty of judges.
The closest answer to the Supreme Court's legal precedent—our ideal in this case—would be picking from a limited range of sentences for each offense rather than having no limitations at all, as the latter would likely result in a return to the non-uniform, disparity-ridden justice system seen before the passage of the SRA.
