Answer:
<h2>The right to property, or the right to own property (cf. ownership) is often classified as a human right for natural persons regarding their possessions. A general recognition of a right to private property is found more rarely and is typically heavily constrained insofar as property is owned by legal persons (i.e. corporations) and where it is used for production rather than consumption.[1]</h2><h2 /><h2>A right to property is recognised in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[2] but it is not recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[3] The European Convention on Human Rights, in Protocol 1, article 1, acknowledges a right for natural and legal persons to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes."</h2><h2 /><h2>Definition </h2><h2>Relationship to other rights </h2><h2>History </h2><h2>See also </h2><h2>Notes </h2><h2>References </h2>
<h2>External links</h2>
Answer:
The red car appears to be "tailgating" the red SUV ... following too close behind it.
The driver of the red car should immediately back off ... leave some more space between his car and the SUV.
If the SUV isn't driving fast enough for him, he should fall in behind the blue car (at a safe distance), and perhaps into one of the two right-hand lanes, and WAIT for a safe opportunity to pass all the traffic and move out ahead. The traffic pattern is sure to change in a minute or two.
Explanation:
Answer:
Judging by the question itself, I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the answer is b.
Explanation:
No but seriously, this helped me out so much.
Answer:
As a judge, you should be required to pick from a limited range of sentences for each offense.
Explanation:
Some may argue that having passed a difficult bar exam to be licensed to practice law, spending years prosecuting or defending criminal cases, and being involved in thousands of criminal trials should qualify a judge to be free to make any sentencing decision they want—but this notion is incorrect.
Although judges tend to be extremely experienced and highly intelligent, granting judges too much leeway in sentencing decisions leads to issues like sentencing disparity (disproportionate sentencing in similar cases). Before the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984, sentencing disparities within the United States justice system were largely unaddressed, so the SRA sought to address sentencing disparities with the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal sentences. However, the SRA limited the power of judges to a great extent, an issue that would be addressed in the <em>United States v. Booker</em> (2005) Supreme Court case, with the court ruling the sentencing guidelines imposed by the SRA be deemed advisory rather than mandatory. What can be learned from these legal developments is that sentencing guidelines are necessary for reducing disparity within the justice system, but should remain advisory so as to not place any excessive limitations on the authority or sentencing liberty of judges.
The closest answer to the Supreme Court's legal precedent—our ideal in this case—would be picking from a limited range of sentences for each offense rather than having no limitations at all, as the latter would likely result in a return to the non-uniform, disparity-ridden justice system seen before the passage of the SRA.
Answer : A
Explanation:
it would also help alot if u googled some of this stuff it would tell u more about it
