You should leave the neighborhood
just cause you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s going to change or stop.
it’s their lifestyle, probably not your liking but it’s not you.
my opinion!!
Answer:
No, it shouldn't. In the present case, it is a conflict of interest between two states: the states of New York and New Jersey, with respect to Ellis Island and the inter-jurisdictional waters of the Hudson River. Therefore, due to being a controversial matter between two states, the provisions of Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which establishes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the case. In addition, in case of recourse to the internal courts of a state, a state would be brought to litigate outside its original jurisdiction.
The SCOTUS did not rule that T.L.O’s 4th amendment (searches and seizures) rights had been violated. They ruled that the school administrations search of the bag was reasonable under the circumstances (i.e T.L.O. Being a minor and on school property, meaning that while at school, administration is responsible for the well-being and safety of all students, thus allowing them to search T.L.O’s bag for marijuana). A good way to think of it is that while you’re at school, the administration acts as your parents. Your parents don’t need a warrant to search through your room and neither does the administration if you are on school property. The 4th amendment applies to this case because it protects against unlawful searches and seizures (i.e. searches and seizures that are without a warrant). The constitutional question was whether or not T.L.O. Could be charged with a crime/punished or not because the school administration did not have a warrant. However, because the school administration was acting as a loco parentis (latin term for “in place of the parent”) they did not need a warrant to search her bag. Hope this helped!
Answer:
언론의 자유와 정부의 법률 관행 규정 사이의 갈등을 식별, 토론 및 해결
Explanation:
THERE YOU GO
Answer:
<u>Advertising Agencies</u>
Explanation:
Remember the product liability doctrine is a <em>claim</em> by a user or buyer of a product because of injury or damage caused by a defective product of a manufacturer after provision of reasonable proof.
Because Advertising Agencies do not produce these products but only advertise, the doctrine of strict product liability does not apply to advertising agency law which is <em>only dedicated to creating, planning, and handling advertising and other forms of promotion and marketing for clients.</em>
