Answer:
The distinction between ordinary and privilege mitigating circumstances are: (a) Under the rules for application of divisible penalties (Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code), the presence of a mitigating circumstance, has the effect of applying the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and 69), the presence of privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of reducing the penalty one or two degrees lower. (b) Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by the aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances are not subject to the off-set rule
When the declaration of independence was made they basically tried to have philosopher of freedom in it like John Locke. He helped shape the ideas of freedom like he said divine rights ( the power of being a king or queen is given by god) he said that was incorrect that the people gave them the right to be king or queen. He thought that the people can over throw the king if they don't go through parliament and if the government becomes destructive. The government should get overthrown if ithe doesn't help with the people's needs.
MARK BRAINLIEST PLEASE
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court had to decide whether "due process of law" means states must obey the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The observation of the Supreme Court is that the convict cannot be punished two times for the same offense. It is simple and very clear that the convict cannot be punished under the fourth and fifth amendments for same offense.
In this particular case, the prosecution has charged Frank Palko for first-degree murder and the court has given a decree as life imprisonment. But the actual nature crime amounts to second-degree murder.
So, the state of Connecticut appealed against this judgment and it has been proved that offense made by Frank Palko amounts to second-degree murder and the death penalty is awarded to convict. The Supreme Court's main decision in Palko vs Connecticut was Palko was the victim of unconstitutional double jeopardy.
Answer:
b. Alice may rescind the agreement only if the stolen Kia is found.
Explanation:
At the moment, Alice may not rescind the agreement as the car in question is not available or in her possession. As long as the car is in her possession, she can rescind the agreement. An agreement can be rescinded if the goods are still in the possession of the owner.
