The threshold of guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt vs preponderance of evidence) is different for criminal and civil cases because the former involves death (ruthless measure) penalty while the latter does not.
<h3>Should there be two thresholds of guilt for criminal and civil cases?</h3>
Yes, there should be. The reason for this is that one is inimical to the existence of human race. Criminal cases pose threat to humans while the other can still be tolerated or corrected. The formal is extremely severe when compare to the other.
<h3>How is the power of the president checked in the United States?</h3>
The President in the executive arm of government can veto a law, proclaim an executive order, but the legislative branch can override that veto or order with enough votes.
<h3>What systems are in place to ensure that the presidential power is not unlimited?</h3>
The systems that are in place to ensure that the president power is not unlimited is Checks and balances. Checks and balances ensure that no one or department has absolute control over decisions. It defines the entusted duties, and force cooperation in completing tasks.
Therefore, the correct answers to the questions attached are given above.
learn more about checks and balances: brainly.com/question/8927972
#SPJ1
Hmm, I kinda can’t help with 4 paragraphs BUT I did look this up “A land stalemate: contrary to the expectations of several parties, the war just couldn’t be finished with a one-two punch combination: for the Germans, it was Paris, then Russia. The Entente, in particular the French, had their own one-two punch combination (Plan XVII) that was a catastrophic failure. All sides kept on fighting, forcing each other into a static war all sides knew it would be very difficult to win (therefore, their respective one-two punch strategy).
A strategic stalemate: the German invasion of Belgium meant that the equilibrium of power would be broken until this country would be restored to its position as a buffer, and with Germany unwilling to cede control of Belgium (for its own strategic reasons[1]) meant that the Entente just could not cut a deal with the Central Empires. This meant…
…a diplomatic stalemate: without the will to compromise, the situation kept going as long as the combatants were willing to fight to keep their strategic goals, rejecting several attempts to reach a ‘peace without victors of losers’, as Pope Benedict XV proposed to the combatants in August 1917.
Finally, there was the domestic situation: all powers had invested a lot of efforts to convince the respective populations that only victory would make all these sacrifices worthwhile. The situation was particularly difficult in Germany: unlike the Entente, with far more democratic governments who could always place the decision to end the war on the population’s desires, the far more authoritarian German Empire could only blame its leadership for the failure: not winning the war would mean, not the fall of the government and an election, but the collapse of the entire system and the destruction of the upper level of its political class, by exile or death.[2] Austria-Hungary was in a similar, but even worse situation: not winning the war would be the fall of the Habsburg dynasty, together with the destruction of the Empire as institution.” This is from quora
It was the Powhatan's and they helped and hurt them. i hope this helps and was the answer you are looking for. <span />
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Unfortunately, you did not attach the list. Without the list, we do not know the reference to support the notion of the Declaration as a lawyer's brief.
However, in order to help you, we can answer in the following general terms.
The Declaration of US Independence can be compared to a lawyer's brief, which is an outline of the claims and the evidence the lawyer will present in a case.
We can set the example of the following lines of the Declaration: <em>"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance.."</em>
In this portion of the Declaration, we can see how a lawyer could have stated the reasons why the King of England was oppressing the 12 American colonists
The Declaration of Independence was promulgated on July 4, 1776, and was immediately adopted by the Continental Congress. It was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, with the help of John Adams, Robert Livingstone, Benjamin Franklin, and Roger Sherman.
