Answer:
Hsu was indicted for violating the Economic Espio- nage Act by conspiring to steal corporate trade secrets for an anti-cancer drug. The defense requested a copy of the trade secret documents. The government contended that the defense did not need access to the documents except under supervision of the judge. The defense maintained a right of full access to the documents so the defense of impossibil- ity could be established, meaning Hsu could not steal trade secrets that did not exist. District court agreed with the defense; government appealed. Must the defendant be allowed full access to trade secrets that are a key part of a case? [U.S. v. Hsu, 155 F. 3d 189, 3rd Cir. (1998)]
Explanation:
Answer: violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause
Explanation:
Plessy claimed the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, which requires that a state must not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court disagreed with Plessy's argument and instead upheld the Louisiana law.
Answer:
Personally I would as it can cause legal problems
Explanation:
Answer:
From its earliest years, the Senate has jealously guarded its power to review and approve or reject presidential appointees to executive and judicial branch posts. In its history, the Senate has confirmed 126 Supreme Court nominations and well over 500 Cabinet nominations.
Explanation:
Hope this helps you! :)
