Supporters of the new Constitution, known as the Federalists, included such prominent figures as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. Their chief concern was strengthening the national government in order to promote unity and stability.
Answer:
go to jail
Explanation:
If you refuse a Breathalyzer test, you will most likely face serious consequences. For instance, if an officer stops you and believes you are intoxicated, and you refuse to submit to a test to determine your blood-alcohol concentration (BAC), you may risk having your license suspended or even face jail time.
While you may not be under arrest at this point, refusing a Breathalyzer may not be such a great idea as prosecutors may still base a potential DUI/DWI charge on other evidence collected at the scene, including officer observations, witness testimony, or the results of a field sobriety test. In certain jurisdictions, your refusal may be used against you in any possible trial. And some state laws distinguish between refusing a mobile Breathalyzer (which can carry a small penalty) and refusing a post-arrest blood, urine, or breath test at a police station or hospital (which can result in more severe penalties).
Answer:
The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.
Explanation:
The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts.
idk if that helps at all, hopefully it helps a little...
Answer: No.
Explanation:
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, later amended by the Clayton Act (1914) prohibits agreements in restraint of trade and monopolization. I expressely outlaws competing firms to conspire to consolidate the market by unfair means, restraining the trade of others.
In this case, the standards for non-wood bats set by the NCAA and the NFHS are not meant to establish a monopoly and they don´t restrain Marucci´s trade.
