Answer:
The following clause states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other state"
a. The Full Faith and Credit Clause
Explanation:
- The option a is correct as the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution states that each state should give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of any other state in the United State of America.
- The option b is incorrect as The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides safeguard against the discrimination for the people of a state in other state.
- The option c is incorrect as this clause is about commerce matters so it is irrelevant here.
- The option d is incorrect as this clause is related to the agreement between the parties so it is also irrelevant here.
- The option e is also incorrect as the this bill is about the rights of the public and many more so it is also irrelevant in the given situation.
Answer:
<h3>
I couldn't really understand your question... but this is what I came up with</h3>
T.L.O. was a 14-year-old female student at a New Jersey high school. A teacher found T.L.O. and another student smoking cigarettes in the girls’ restroom in the school building in violation of school rules. The teacher brought the two students to a school administrator, who questioned each of them. The second student admitted to smoking cigarettes. T.L.O. denied the allegations. The administrator then accused T.LO. of lying to him, and demanded to see her purse in an attempt to find the cigar
Answer: i don't know you have to figure it out yourself duh.
Explanation: this is none of your beeswax ok
Answer:
As a judge, you should be required to pick from a limited range of sentences for each offense.
Explanation:
Some may argue that having passed a difficult bar exam to be licensed to practice law, spending years prosecuting or defending criminal cases, and being involved in thousands of criminal trials should qualify a judge to be free to make any sentencing decision they want—but this notion is incorrect.
Although judges tend to be extremely experienced and highly intelligent, granting judges too much leeway in sentencing decisions leads to issues like sentencing disparity (disproportionate sentencing in similar cases). Before the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984, sentencing disparities within the United States justice system were largely unaddressed, so the SRA sought to address sentencing disparities with the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal sentences. However, the SRA limited the power of judges to a great extent, an issue that would be addressed in the <em>United States v. Booker</em> (2005) Supreme Court case, with the court ruling the sentencing guidelines imposed by the SRA be deemed advisory rather than mandatory. What can be learned from these legal developments is that sentencing guidelines are necessary for reducing disparity within the justice system, but should remain advisory so as to not place any excessive limitations on the authority or sentencing liberty of judges.
The closest answer to the Supreme Court's legal precedent—our ideal in this case—would be picking from a limited range of sentences for each offense rather than having no limitations at all, as the latter would likely result in a return to the non-uniform, disparity-ridden justice system seen before the passage of the SRA.
