The choices are:
Sociological
Law and Economics
Command
Irrational Forces
Legal Realism
Answer:
The answer is: Sociological School of Jurisprudential Thought
Explanation:
The "Sociological" School of Jurisprudential Thought approaches the law in accordance to society. This means that the people in the society is the main source of law. This gives everyone a balance welfare and equal opportunities.
"Affirmative action" falls under this approach.<u> This action supports those people who are disadvantaged. </u>This considers the person's race, gender, religion, etc. when it comes to opportunities in the society. <u>It gives an equal access to the minority groups.</u> In the situation of Avery town above, the law on the employment for people who are transgender and homosexual individuals fall under this approach.
Thus, this explains the answer.
Answer:
A good research must revolve around a novel question and must be based on a feasible study plan. It must make a significant contribution to scientific development by addressing an unanswered question or by solving a problem or difficulty that existed in the real world.
Explanation:
I would say something like this.
Your social number is how the government can determine who you are (it’s your identity) and if someone has your social, then they have access to your identity. That means they can go committing crimes with your identity and have access to all your accounts and scamming with your identity and such!
So it’s important to keep it to yourself and the only time you would usually give it out is when your applying for a job.
The advocates of Judicial restraint believed that the supreme court should defer to the elective institutions of government.
<h3><u>What is </u><u>
Judicial restraint</u>
</h3>
Basically, a judicial restraint is said to occurs when a judge reaches a decision mainly on the law without any reliance political preferences.
In other word, the Judicial restraint means a judge refusal to exercise an judicial review line with politics.
In conclusion, the advocates of Judicial restraint believed that the supreme court should defer to the elective institutions of government.
Read more about Judicial restraint
<em>brainly.com/question/857897</em>
Answer:
true, i think
Explanation:
In the landmark supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court held that if police do not inform people they arrest about certain constitutional rights, including their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, then their confessions may not be used as evidence at trial.