Answer:
A rebuttable presumption is assumed true until a person proves otherwise (for example the presumption of innocence). In contrast, a conclusive (or irrebuttable) presumption cannot be refuted in any case (such as defense of infancy in some legal systems).Explanation:
Answer: a warrantless search or seizure
Explanation: A probable cause to seize or search property exists when facts and circumstances known to an officer would have lead to a reasonable person to believe that the item is contraband ( banned substance, items ), stolen, or constitutes evidence of a crime. When a search warrant is issued, only items described on the warrant can be searched for.
Answer:
English:
The government is funded by-
Annual Funding Areas
The Complex Role of Congress in the Budget Process
The Deficit, the Debt, and the Debt Ceiling.
And I'm assuming you speak spanish and sorry if this doesn't make any sense my Spanish Isn't good and well this is going to be from Go.ogle translate
Español:
Áreas de Financiamiento Anual
El complejo papel del Congreso en el proceso presupuestario
Presupuesto Federal por Año Fiscal
El déficit, la deuda y el techo de la deuda.
Explanation:
<em>Hope this helps :)</em>
<em>Pls mark brainliest :3</em>
<em>And have an amazing day <3</em>
Answer:
because they want to make like harder for us
In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.
