The basis on which Nevada had the authority to <u>override a federal law</u> is <u>Option A</u>. ... widespread public acceptance and general use of marijuana has made it difficult to enforce federal law.
<h3>Can a state override a federal law?</h3>
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause means that the federal constitution and laws take precedence over state laws and constitutions.
<h3>Answer Options:</h3>
A. Nevada doesn’t have the authority to override federal law. Federal law stands supreme. Yet, the force of widespread public acceptance and general use of marijuana has made it difficult to enforce federal law. We also saw this effect during Prohibition in the 1920s – which showed that even constitutional law has limits if a substantial part of the population does not support that law.
B. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has the statutory authority to allow exceptions to federal drug laws.
C. States have precedence over federal authorities on matters of recreational drug use.
D. The executive authority of the governor of Nevada makes such laws exceptions to federal prohibitions. By virtue of signing the legislation making marijuana legal, Governor Brian Sandoval’s executive authority gave pot’s legal possession precedence over federal law.
Thus, the basis on which Nevada had the authority to <u>override a federal law</u> is <u>Option A</u>. ... widespread public acceptance and general use of marijuana has made it difficult to enforce federal law.
Learn more about the Supremacy Clause at brainly.com/question/12959391
Hello! I’m doing okay kind of tired how are you?
Answer:
Theories may be proven to be true and become hypotheses. After an investigation, Kuri determines that her hypothesis was wrong.
If Pamela appeals the case in order to include the witness who saw Darin driving, it is possible that the appeals court will not take the witness's testimony into account.
<h3>What happens if Pamela appeals?</h3>
Appeals courts are not there to retry a case or to give the case a new trial. Their purpose is to check if there were errors in the way the lower court handled the case.
This means that they often do not take new witness testimony into account. What this means for Pamela is that even though she has a new witness, the appeals court might not consider the testimony of the witness because they were not used in the first court.
Find out more on the appeals process at brainly.com/question/1897528
#SPJ1
Answer:
B. Employers are not liable for the acts of their supervisors, regardless of whether the employer is aware of the sexual harassment act.
Explanation:
In this case, the Supreme Court mentioned that an employer isat risk. That means that the empolyer does nor have a defense when sexual harassment by a supervisor involves a tangible employment action. Courts hope that employers educate supervisors so they do not commit any type of behavior that could be considered as sexual harassment. Also, all employees must be educated so as to understand their rights and responsibilities .