Answer:
Explanation:
If you're referring to regulations:
There is a maximum amount of money individuals and organizations can send directly to candidates (HARD MONEY)
A way to bypass this is if you send money to a political party which then runs ads for campaigns
Example; You already contributed your maximum $5,000 to the Trump Campaign but you want to contribute $20,000 in total so you give the Republican Party $15,000.
Also no foreign money is allowed in political elections.
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
The correct answer was no need to pay taxes.
Answer Integration angle just means peoples perspective on integration!
Explanation:
I had a little trouble reading this so I apologize if it's not correct!
Try rewording the question as: What are 3 arguments people make against integration when it comes to affirmative action?
I sadly do not know the 3 arguments regarding integration in affirmative action, but I hope the way I reworded the question helps! The term "integration angle" is rather confusing.
Explanation:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
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.
