Answer:
Federalism
Explanation:
Federalism refers to the system of government in which power is divided between the federal government and the many individual state governments.
In the United States for instance, the Constitution provides certain powers only to the central government, other powers only to the state governments, and some powers to both.
Answer:
Correct Answer:
E. That the manufacturer did not give a sample or a model of the seeds.
Explanation:
As an attorney of the manufacturer, the best argument in the case between my client and the seed buyer, Joe would be on the fact that, the manufacturer did not give a sample or model of the seeds to Joe to verify if it meets his requirements.
<em>Also, Joe never requested to see sample of the seeds as was standard with buying of agricultural products.</em>
Answer:
Sorry for your loss, and Happy Veterans Day!
Explanation:
Answer:
The session that Dan is required to attend is:
Victim-offender mediation session.
Explanation:
Victim-offender mediation (VOM) session is a mediation session (also called a meeting, conference, or reconciliation) between a victim and an offender to bring about restorative justice for the victim. The VOM process provides interested victims the opportunity to meet the offenders in safe and structured environments. Every VOM session tries to provide the victim with the necessary support that they require to voice their views about the crime and to receive some answers from the offender. During the session, the offender will outline restitution plans, while the mediator ensures that the offender complies with the plans. Otherwise, the court will intervene with full legal force.
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.