This is when states become a “laboratories for Democracy”. This means that while federal law may say one thing about a certain issue/policy, there is sometimes overlap in jurisdiction that allow states to go against the Federal Government. A benefit of states being laboratories for Democracy is that they are able to implement policies that they feel is best for citizens of their respected state. A quality example of this would be the legality of marijuana. While marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, many states (colorado, california, washington, etc) have decided that the consumption of marijuana is legal for recreational use, despite federal law that prohibits it.
Answer: It is not.
Explanation:
The U.S. Constitution has a clause known as the Supremacy Clause that places the Constitution of the United States as well as all Federal law that are not in violation of the Constitution above State laws and Constitutions.
This is why Federal Voting rights were able to prevail over the State Constitutions in the South after the Civil War.
For this reason, the Federal Statute enacted by Congress will take precedence over the Wisconsin State Constitutional Provision.
Answer:
<u>Advertising Agencies</u>
Explanation:
Remember the product liability doctrine is a <em>claim</em> by a user or buyer of a product because of injury or damage caused by a defective product of a manufacturer after provision of reasonable proof.
Because Advertising Agencies do not produce these products but only advertise, the doctrine of strict product liability does not apply to advertising agency law which is <em>only dedicated to creating, planning, and handling advertising and other forms of promotion and marketing for clients.</em>
Answer:
Testimonial evidence
Explanation:
Testimonial evidence is evidence provided by people who were in the vicinity of the area where the case was located, and who, under oath, assure that they saw or heard something related to the case.
In the question, we have a typical example of testimonial evidence because a witness is assuring that he saw the defendant in the area that is related to the case, but is not necessarily providing any other type of evidence to support that claim. Whether the testimony is considered truthful or not, or relevant or not, depends on the context of the case, and on the ultimate decision of the jury.
