Answer and Explanation:
Jusnaturalist School: According to this school, a law must, above all, directly address the promotion of justice in any type of situation, respecting the maximum natural right of the individual, which is an inalienable right that must be respected at any cost. . Based on this school, the situation shown in the question above is inadmissible, as it does not promote justice, it prevents innocent people from traveling via respecting their religion and still hurts their natural right.
Teleological School: This school has a strong political character and states that a law that achieves a social balance and promotes and is the service of protection and promotion of policies that protect society, it is valid. In relation to the case shown in the question above, this school can claim that the law is correct, since there have already been many cases of terrorism caused by Muslims, making their ban on boarding a promotion of social security.
2. When analyzing these two schools of legal thought in relation to the case shown in the question above, I came to the conclusion that the Jusnaturalist school is the one I most agree with. This is because prohibiting Muslim women from boarding an airplane because of terorist cases that they were not part of is a strong example of religious prejudice and intolerance, in addition to hurting the rights of innocent women.
A Is the correct answer the law protects any discrimination against older workers unless they have a contract saying you must retire
Explanation:
comparison microscopes are used to identify a specific weapon.
every gun weapon, has a unique pattern on the bullet after firing.
authorities can compare a murder weapon with the same stock of gun.
if murder weapon is found, they can compare the "murder bullet" with existing guns of the same make, model, if while finding the murder weapon, the same pattern exists on suspected weapon's bullet, it will be subjected as evidence.
Answer:
Explanation:
The def: not in accordance with a political constitution, especially the US Constitution, or with procedural rules. Ex." we cannot tolerate unconstitutional action" Declaring laws constitutional or un unconstitutional is done by the deciding in the Judicial Branch of government.
However, governments do not just create laws. Governments also enforce the laws set forth in the document defining the government—in the Constitution. In the United States, the failure to seat duly elected representatives of the people following a proper election, or the failure to provide for such elections would be unconstitutional even in the absence of any legislated laws whatsoever.
When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law declared void is considered struck down, or the entire statute is considered struck from the statute books.
Depending on the type of legal system, a statute may be declared unconstitutional by any court, or only by special Constitutional courts with authority to rule on the validity of a statute. In some countries, the legislature may create any law for any purpose, and there is no provision for courts to declare a law unconstitutional. This can occur either because the country has no codified constitution that laws must conform to (e.g., the United Kingdom and New Zealand) or because the constitution is codified but no court has the authority to strike down laws on the basis of it (e.g., the Netherlands and Switzerland).
A Explanation: Trust Me Bro
