Answer:
in part 1 mainly but in 3 also it is little bit
so the answer is 1 and 3
Explanation:
An
initiative is a reform enabling voters to approve an amendment to their state
constitution. It is a process making citizens circumvent the state legislature
by putting proposed statutes and amendments in constitution. <span>There are two
types of initiatives: Direct process and proposals are direct initiative. Indirect
process is when the initiative is given to the legislature.</span>
Answer: Basically polytheism is the belief in many gods or deities while monotheism is the belief in just one God.
Answer:
Explanation:
Full question
Blow up." Jeanie is hauling gas in the back of her pick-up truck for her personal watercraft. She is planning a lake party and thinks she will need a lot of it. On the way home, Jeanie stops at the automatic teller machine at her bank and exits her car. Holly pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Jeanie's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Holly for negligence claiming that Holly should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claimed that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
A. The bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B. The bank is correct only if Holly has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
C. The bank is correct only if it can be established that Holly was a repeat driving offender.
D. The bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of due care.
E. The bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.
The bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of due care. The bank should be more concerned about what caused the explosion which really had nothing to do with Holly but why did the pick-up truck explode. How does Holly parking her car at rear-ends of Jeanie's pick up cause an explosion due to negligence. What is the prove
The common law of negligence, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine states that a breach of a party's duty of care may be inferred from the events that occurred. In other words, the negligence is so noticeable that you can tell that someone had a negligent hand in what happened.
Explanation:
improving the effectiveness of Congress and government at large. More specifically, advocates suggest term limits would allow members to spend less time dialing for dollars and more time on policymaking, allow them to make unpopular but necessary decisions without fear of retaliation at the ballot box, and avoid the corruptive influence of special interests that many assume is an inevitable result of spending too much time in Washington, D.C.
Plus, proponents reason, new blood in Congress is a good thing. New members bring fresh ideas and aren’t beholden to the old ways of Washington that have left so many voters frustrated and Congress’ approval rating in shambles. At the very least, term limits would prevent members from being reelected despite serving long past their primes.
In a political environment where bipartisan agreement on any issue of any size is rarely enjoyed, this proposal is incredibly popular. Seventy-four percent of likely voters are in favor of congressional term limits. In fact, many members—the very people who would be affected should such a policy be put in place—have shown their desire to limit the number of terms they themselves are eligible to serve by introducing legislation in nearly every congressional session since 1943 that would add a term-limit amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even then-candidate Donald Trump argued term limits would effectively help him “drain the swamp” when elected, much to the delight of his anti-establishment base
