Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] In the United States and most countries, corporations have a right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. In a U.S. historical context, the phrase 'Corporate Personhood' refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations. A headnote issued by the Court Reporter in the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that point. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), the Court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exempted Hobby Lobby from aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because those aspects placed a substantial burden on the closely held company's owners' exercise of free religion.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Answer:
The right choice is:
A. he encouraged Catholics to question a number of practices
of the church including the sale of indulgences.
Explanation:
Martin Luther is the father of Protestant Reformation. He was a Catholic priest and a seminar theologian in Wittenberg, Germany. In the 1510s, he went to Rome and came back shocked by the sale of indulgences and papal bulls for the forgiveness of sins. He couldn´t agree with those acts aimed at enlarging the chests of the Church. After a long reflection, he openly questioned them and the authority of the Vatican. He said that Christians could win God´s grace by faith only, not through buying indulgences, and that the Bible was the ultimate authority in religious matters. The furious reaction of the Vatican was to excommunicate him given his refusal to retract.
Answer:
`
No proper police force existed before the 16th century. It was the responsibility of the victim and local community to find the criminal themselves. It was expected that communities would be responsible for policing and combatting crime.
10th century
Hywel Dda was a Welsh ruler in the 10th century. He unified most of Wales under his leadership. He also wrote Wales’ first uniform legal system. After the Norman Conquest, the Laws of Hywel Dda continued as the basis of the Welsh legal system.
In 1284 the Statute of Rhuddlan enforced the use of English law for all criminal cases in Wales. However, the Laws of Hywel Dda continued to be used for civil cases until 1540.
By 1500 most of the population still lived in rural communities or small towns. However, the feudal system was in decline and parishes were increasingly used as a way to organise and control local matters rather than the Lord of the Manor.
Although parishes were religious organisations, throughout the 16th century, Tudor Governments gave them increasing powers in local matters. For example, in 1555, parishes were responsible for the upkeep of nearby roads, whilst the 1601 Poor Relief Act (Poor Law) outlined the responsibility of the parish to look after its own poor. Also under the Act, parishioners were appointed by JPs to serve as overseers of the Poor Law for one year.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, individual towns and parishes took greater responsibility for combating crime and policing the nation.
Explanation:
USSR (Russia) was led by Stalin
Anti-Federalists were against the Constitution, so I'm fairly certain that the rest of that statement goes:
According to the Anti-Federalists, a governing document such as the Constitution should most certainly fail to protect the rights of individuals and the states.
That's the most I've got with how much you gave, I'll probably need specific choices to choose from for a more satisfying and accurate answer.
