Answer:
The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.
Explanation:
The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.
Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.
There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation:
It is a safety hazard if they aren't, unless they are crossing the street or so.
Answer:
The Department of Defense
Explanation:
Because it is in charge of our military which protects our country's freedoms.
Answer1:an international agreement, usually regarding routine administrative matters not warranting a formal treaty, made by the executive branch of the US government without ratification by the Senate Answer2: An executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding
