Answer:
federal government is a type of government powering up the nation into different level.but its not termed as a constitution .
so i thik the answer is federal government.
It is a false statement that the curfew is an unfair limit on their persoanl rights granted by the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
<h3>What is the Bill of Rights?</h3>
This is an first amendment that establish citizen right & liberties from the government authorities.
The right ranges from right to speech, religion, privacy, press, assembly, petition, trial by jury etc.
However, the curfew imposed on the citizen is not an unfair limit on their personal rights because it is intended to protect them from an unseen danger that can occur at night.
Missing words " Residents say it is an unfair limit on their rights. Discuss your position on the issue and include an explanation of how it relates to an amendment in the Bill of Rights.:
Read more about Bill of Rights
<em>brainly.com/question/493206</em>
#SPJ1
Answer:
Check below for the answers and explanations
Explanation:
1) Standing is the process of examining the right of a plaintiff to take a lawsuit to the court of law.
Standing is important to ensure that the case brought to court is actually a dispute and not a contempt from an aggrieved party. It also ensures that the innocent is not unlawfully punished.
2) Sierra Club could have had a standing to file the lawsuit if it had an evidence or a likelihood of being injured or harmed
3) The Sierra club case led to the birth of a dissent that environmental objects should be regarded as persons in ecological matters.
4)The case did not have standing because it was filed by an organization and this conflicts with the Animal Welfare Act which stated that individuals and organizations do not have standing to file a lawsuit in a court.
5) Mr Jurnove, a worker of the Animal Legal Defence Fund was able to provide a substantial claim of the injuries he suffered when he saw the ill treatment the animals were subjected to by USDA.
Though other plaintiffs do not have standing, as far as one of them does, it will not be considered whether or not the others have standing. Therefore, the plaintiff had standing.
6) None of the plaintiffs that were acting on behalf of the dolphin met the requirement of "Injury in fact", a necessary requirement to have standing. None of them could give evidences of the injuries suffered as a result of the act by The New England Aquarium.
Thxx man can I have brainliest too
