Answer:
The fourteenth amendment establishes birthright citizenship. Thismeans that any person born in the U.S. is considered a U.S. citizen and has the right of life,liberty and property.
Explanation:
Answer:
In a 7-2 choice, the Supreme Court's larger part ruled that not one or the other understudies nor instructors “shed their sacred rights to opportunity of discourse or expression at the school building gate.” The Court took the position that school authorities seem not deny as it were on the doubt that the discourse might disturb the learning
Explanation:
Answer:
By disseminating, on an anonymous basis, actual legal cases detailing errors that caused avoidable patient injury, healthcare providers and their risk managers will engage in discussions that logically will lead to reduced incidences of similar injuries.
Explanation:
<h2>TRUE</h2>
Some economists suggest they are, while others suggest it's the other way around: Longer expansions lead to more severe recessions. ... The most recent US business cycle has been remarkable in both its recession and expansion phases.
A business cycle represents fluctuations in the economy around full-employment output, but an economy's full-employment output, often called potential GDP, can also change. It grows over time due to population growth, growth in the economy's capital stock, and technological change.
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
