Answer:
Governing power should be divided between different levels of government.
Explanation:
1. Accord and satisfaction
That’s the only one I will answer but I hoped it helped a little
Answer:
A lobbyist is a professional whose job is to make contacts with influential people in Washington (or whatever government) and make a case on behalf of a client. They're regulated under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If you're spending most of your time chatting with Congressmen, then you need to file forms saying who you're talking to and on whose behalf. These forms are filed with the clerks in the House and the Senate.
While a Political Action Committee (PAC) is a group of people with some kind of interest. They collect money and spend it to promote that interest. They have to file forms, with the Federal Election Commission rather than with the legislative branch, though unlike the lobbyists they have ways to not disclose who's giving them money. They can hold public meetings, buy TV advertising, donate money to causes, give money to candidates (a small amount- about $5k to candidates and $15k to parties), and hire lobbyists.
Generally, when a PAC hires a lobbyist, the lobbyist is the one to go to the legislator and make the case on behalf of the PAC. They may also bring the PAC's own team to make the presentation, but they need to be very careful about crossing the (byzantine) set of rules trying to keep the ethical lines clear-ish. Conceivably, they could have lobbyists on staff, but it exposes the entire organization to levels of disclosure that they'd generally rather not have. Thus, the usual plan is for a PAC to hire an established lobbying firm, who is already registered and prepared to handle the paperwork.
Explanation:
Hope this helped :)
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.
