Answer:
1. According to my research, when it comes to criminal law or criminal cases, what is involved is a breach of that law, which may or may not be regarded as an offense against society or the state. As a result, the burden of evidence is different between criminal and civil law cases. Apart from the reasons already stated, the stakes in criminal cases are greater since a person's liberty is on the line; he or she may be imprisoned should it be proven that they committed a crime, and they will now have criminal records. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is lower than in civil cases, since most of the time, all that is going on is a disagreement between two people about what their legal duties and responsibilities are to each other.
While the burden of evidence is shared by both sides in civil court cases, the prosecution is required to demonstrate the facts against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial since everyone is deemed innocent unless proven guilty under the law. Only preponderance proof is required in civil disputes, which means that the claims are more likely to be true than not. A party has satisfied its burden of evidence if they can show to the fact finder that there is a better than 50% possibility that their claim is accurate. In civil trials, it is up to the person making the charges against the defendant to prove that they are true.
2. A dictator cannot rise to power in the United States because there are enough constraints on presidential authority to prevent a president from gaining total control over the country. The separation of powers has been a hallmark of the United States constitution since its inception. As a result, the government branches have been able to hold each other in check via horizontal separation of powers.
There is a check on each other's authority in our government, with the executive branch led by the president, the legislature, and the courts. The federal and state governments are split vertically even farther. According to the people who wrote the constitution, a party meant to build a government that could both rule and be ruled.
My point of view on this is A president should not be able to rule with impunity because of the constitution's checks and balances on presidential authority. A dictator cannot take over the United States because the Constitution says that the president's power can be limited.
3. From my perspective, yes, the constitution's rights apply to both federal and state legislation. This is because the constitution gives protection to all its citizens, regardless of their domicile. The constitution provides rights and essential civil liberties to the people and the states. These rights include freedom of religion, the right to freedom of expression and the right to trial by jury, among many others. The incorporation concept is a constitutional doctrine under which the United States Constitution's first 10 articles (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause. Incorporation has both substantive and procedural ramifications. Previously, the bill of rights was only applicable to the federal government. The constitution consequently restricts the authority of both the federal and state governments.
Explanation:
100% free from plagiarism!
Use your words to make it your own.
