1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Contact [7]
2 years ago
5

Do you think there should be a data base for everyone's DNA ? If so then why?

Law
1 answer:
Schach [20]2 years ago
5 0

Answer:

yes

Explanation:

Given set data base has every new born child's DNA towards every passing of every other. Not meaning habing a crimjnal record puts blood and suliva but preamble DNA from birth, now rather than having to point match on criminal data, rather pre-set DNA data base on every human living or non-living.

Properly deviding DNA base still into split sections for criminal records amd clean records where clean record's are rather added/stamped when found guilty in the court of law, but then having all possible DNA sample at the touch of a button (rather should i say match) pre-liminates playing detective and running around following leads, ensuring closure towards deceased members familiy and aswell as eliminating wrongful imprisonment of non guilty members that adds unnecessary cost and reclurces towrards goverment funds etc.

Having "system that works, why fix" is not as having a system that continuously improves and sustains a flawless lrocedure rather than groping at the mids of a cold case in the hope that somewhere a light switch gets turned or a whistleblower apears is high waist of reacources and complete over kill. Given we are in a modern time where tech constantly improves to ease the human race, why not sustain a even rise in our modern living standards and consecutive growth in a that's even the slightest of possibilities.

You might be interested in
Which is an example of a citizen participating in an election campaign
vitfil [10]

Answer:

Stuffing envelopes with information about a candidate to send to voters.

Explanation:

<em>Technically</em>, they are all ways of participation within a election campaign, whether it is direct or indirect participation, or participation from the result of such campaign. However, the most direct way that a citizen participates that may help with the campaign is A), as they are actively participating in the process of sending out (mostly positive) information on their own candidate in hopes of getting he/she enough votes to win.

Learning about candidates may be a indirect way of participating in an election, as one must understand the candidates to adequately be able to vote. However, it is not exactly a participation within a election campaign, though it may lead to it.

Learning about the process of how to register to vote is a citizen actively trying to meet the requirements in order to be able to participate directly in the booth, but does not exactly help with a election campaign directly.

Watching a debate also does not help with a election campaign.  A debate is typically hosted by a third party, and after deciding on the campaign they like the most, they may join the party and actively help then, but they are not exactly participating in a campaign during the debate.

Therefore, A would be your best answer.

~

5 0
2 years ago
Do you believe this is fair justices? Why or Wny Not.
emmainna [20.7K]

Answer:

Yes, because he has been convicted as a child mol and has been a repeated offender. That is the Law!

Explanation:

5 0
4 years ago
What does the Supreme Court have the power to do?
Ipatiy [6.2K]

Answer:

A lot!

Explanation:

Supreme Court Background

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

The Justices

Over the years, various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of 10. Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine. Today, there is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Like all federal judges, justices are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They, typically, hold office for life. The salaries of the justices cannot be decreased during their term of office. These restrictions are meant to protect the independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government.

The Court's Jurisdiction

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).

Cases

When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

Judicial Review

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

Role

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Take the it this is for
katrin2010 [14]

Answer:

what do you mean ............

Explanation:

because I'm just askin

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What counsel did Brigham Young give to Ephraim Hanks regarding the walls of his adobe house?
Snowcat [4.5K]

Answer:

Brigham Tells him to tear the wall down and rebuild it twice as thick.

Explanation:

Ephraim obedience regardless the tedious work already put into it paid off a month later when the new wall withstood the heavy storm because of brignhams wise counsel.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • No other branch of corrections is as closely involved with offenders as probation officers.
    6·2 answers
  • uppy Woes. Sam promised to sell Linda a Welsh Corgi puppy for $300 but backed out of the deal. Linda sued Sam in state court for
    11·1 answer
  • After the initial walk-through, who is now in authority of the crime scene, securing the safety of both people and crime
    15·1 answer
  • _____ is a legal term that describes where a certain institution, such as a court or a government branch or office, is allowed t
    8·1 answer
  • What was the famous civilization in the area of Mesopotamia and Phoenicia? _________________________________________
    15·1 answer
  • Which Florida state government department is responsible for the care of children deemed wards of the court?
    7·2 answers
  • Joel is a dispatcher for the city. When someone calls in who is having trouble breathing, Joel speaks to them calmly, while aler
    12·1 answer
  • The Fifth Amendment protects the individual's rights to have a trial by jury
    14·2 answers
  • Which is an example of restricted free speech?
    14·2 answers
  • Explain each of the three perspectives of human nature
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!