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
Answer:
They might change prices of have sales and make adds for products.
Explanation:
Tina has the right to sue the company that sold her the product arguing that it had been recalled as potentially dangerous to consumers and she should be compensated for the damages caused by the dryer.
<h3>What should Tina do?</h3>
Tina must seek help from the Federal Trade Commission, this institution is in charge of protecting consumers and promoting competition between companies.
Based on the foregoing, Tina can rely on this institution to sue the company that sold her the dryer because this product had been withdrawn from the market for being dangerous.
So the company that sold him the dryer was committing a crime for selling this object. Additionally, this company must compensate Tina for the damages caused by this product.
Learn more about consumer in: brainly.com/question/950909
Answer:
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.
Explanation:
Answer:
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Explanation:
