Answer:
This statement is incorrect, since the theory has enormous relevance in law.
Explanation:
The law is basically a set of norms that regulates life in society, establishing guidelines for coexistence and rules of conduct that, if not complied with, have consequences that can range from simple fines to time in prison.
But unlike what the statement says, the law is composed of a theoretical component, which implies the sociological and cultural study of the law and the society to which it will apply, the consequences that it may have and its use in other societies. Without this study, the laws would be empty of content, since they would be simple rules without any basis and, therefore, very easy to be broken.
Answer:
A lobbyist is a professional whose job is to make contacts with influential people in Washington (or whatever government) and make a case on behalf of a client. They're regulated under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If you're spending most of your time chatting with Congressmen, then you need to file forms saying who you're talking to and on whose behalf. These forms are filed with the clerks in the House and the Senate.
While a Political Action Committee (PAC) is a group of people with some kind of interest. They collect money and spend it to promote that interest. They have to file forms, with the Federal Election Commission rather than with the legislative branch, though unlike the lobbyists they have ways to not disclose who's giving them money. They can hold public meetings, buy TV advertising, donate money to causes, give money to candidates (a small amount- about $5k to candidates and $15k to parties), and hire lobbyists.
Generally, when a PAC hires a lobbyist, the lobbyist is the one to go to the legislator and make the case on behalf of the PAC. They may also bring the PAC's own team to make the presentation, but they need to be very careful about crossing the (byzantine) set of rules trying to keep the ethical lines clear-ish. Conceivably, they could have lobbyists on staff, but it exposes the entire organization to levels of disclosure that they'd generally rather not have. Thus, the usual plan is for a PAC to hire an established lobbying firm, who is already registered and prepared to handle the paperwork.
Explanation:
Hope this helped :)
Answer:
It is the duty of Congress to have hearings in order to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee (as stated in the Constitution). This exclusive power rests on the U.S. Senate. The consensus, however, may be different and may vote against a nominee. Political parties within the Senate generally get in the way of who will vote and who won't, and vice-versa.
Explanation:
For example, Merrick Garland (former President Obama's nominee) was not given a hearing. Furthermore, Congress failed to perform the duties to have a hearing and decide whether to vote or deny a nominee. This is an example of how they refused to even vote on him. This is not the way government should operate.
