Answer: When the law is so vast that it cant be understood by the one supposedly breaking the law, the person can be found guilty of a crime based on the interpretation as others see the law which might conflict someone elses interpretation.
Explanation: We all have a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness but how can you restrict that by writing more laws that contradict this right?
Answer:
The CORRECT answer is C. Army
Explanation:
It is better known as the SIFT, both commissioned and warrant officers are required to obtain a score of at least 40 in order to qualify for flight school. The multiple-choice test is broken down into seven sections and can take up to three hours.
Hopefully this helps!!
Let me know if you still need help or if you have any questions!
Answer:
Yes, indeed. Careful driving (ie low travelling speeds) helps reduce the risk of casualties.
Interest groups often use lobbying to influence members of Congress.
Explanation:
Interests groups often employ lobbying as a tactic to influence decisions of the executive or the legislature or the judiciary to make sure that the policies being made and the laws that are being passed are in their favor either strategically or economically.
Lobbying groups like big pharmaceuticals often have great influence on how laws are made and which things are outlawed or not as many people in the government also have vested interests in these groups.
Answer:
No, as hearsay not within any exception.
Explanation:
(B) The sketch is inadmissible on hearsay grounds. Under Rule 801 of the Federal Rules, prior identification can be admissible, and the sketch could be deemed a prior identification. However, to be admissible, the witness must be there to testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination. The witness in this case is unavailable; hence, this exception does not apply. (D) is therefore incorrect. (A) applies to documentary evidence and has no relevance to this question. (C) is likewise not applicable, because this exception applies only to information within the personal knowledge of the public employee. In this case, the public employee gained the knowledge from the hearsay statements of an absent witness.
