Answer: The best criticizism is that Bar exams "cost too much and exact great liabilities" Option A is the most correct option
Explanation: Bar exams are used to regulate the number of people that are practical layers. This exam is taken after you've successfully graduated from a law school.
The exam has been designed to favor only the rich, as the poor finds it very difficult to pay the fees involved. The law school is very costly, as the books and course handout are always costly. The exam is too costly that you need a loan that should not be less that $140,000 to complete your studies, leading to big liability to pay off, when you have started practicing. Even when you have passed the exams, you are still meant to pay for your license.
The government should try and subsidize the amount of money been paid for Bar exam, as this will help to increase the boundaries of licensing outstanding layers, thereby creating an equal opportunity chance for the rich and the poor to practice law.
Answer:
Victimology focuses on helping victims heal after a crime, while criminology aims to understand the criminal's motives and the underlying causes of crime. Victimologists are concerned with fostering recovery, while criminologists seek prevention.
Explanation:
Hope this helps!
Can I get brainliest?
In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.
As a member of LGBTQ+, I am constantly fighting this *cracks knuckles* here we go, bigots >:3
~
As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, it is my job and duty to say that we endure too much. Some of us have never come out in fear of rejection. Some of us have been murdered or r*aped due to us revealing our true identities. Many people have the support of parents, family, and friends. And just as many,<em> possibly even more</em>, do not. Some people may not go out with their partners in fear of being assaulted, slurred at, or having a Bible thrown at them. This is is not, never was, and never will be a choice. So just <em>why?</em> Why hate on those like you? Why hate on those who have quotidian lives just like you; people who have families just like you, people who need to shower, and eat and drink just like you?
If you believe in basic human rights, in people not being attacked by acquaintances, join me and many others in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights.
~
sorry if it's too short; I spent <em>a lot</em> of time on this. just pls give credit UwU and may I have Brainliest? thank you :)
