Trust between __________ is crucial for a successful undercover operation.

1.) Should officers with body-worn cameras be required to announce they are wearing the devices?

tekilochka [14]

Explanation:

1. No they don't have to announce it if it's obvious to the people or no an officer don't need to announce it

And

2. The body-worn camera should be worn when there's an important issue going on to preserve an evidence and a clue of what really happened and for more reality and caution ⚠

5 0

3 years ago

Challenges of separation of power

Scrat [10]

In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.

6 0

2 years ago

Officer Belkin patrols an area known to have a lot of illegal

rosijanka [135]

Answer:

B.

Explanation:

6 0

3 years ago

IF YOU WANT TO TURN LEFT FROM A DRIVEWAY ONTO A ROAD WITH A

kakasveta [241]

<h2>Your Question: IF YOU WANT TO TURN LEFT FROM A DRIVEWAY ONTO A ROAD WITH A</h2><h2>IF YOU WANT TO TURN LEFT FROM A DRIVEWAY ONTO A ROAD WITH ALANE MARKED AS SHOWN BELOW, YOU:</h2>

<h2>Answer: B. Must use this lane before merging into regular traffic</h2>

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

If the u.S. President is suspected of certain treasonous acts or other "high crimes", the House of Representatives may choose to

babunello [35]

Charges taken over if the US president is suspected of certain treasonous acts or other high crimes:

Legislature can charge against a civil officer for crimes said to have been committed bribery, treason or other high crimes. It does not mean removal from office; it is only a statement of charges, similar to indictment in criminal law.

Two presidents, Bill Clinton, and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but the Senate voted not to convict any of them. After the Judiciary Committee approved 3 articles of impeachment Nixon resigned but before the House voted on them. Vice President takes over if a president is impeached.

In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US or adhering to their Enemies, giving them comfort and aid. Conviction requires two witnesses or a confession in open court.

Impeachment is a 3 step procedure at the federal level. The following are the three steps,

Investigation by the Congress: Beginning in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere.

Voting by the House of Representatives: They have to pass, by a majority of those present and voting, the articles of impeachment, that constitute the formal allegations. Based on the passage, the defendant will be "impeached".

By the Senate: The Senate investigates the accused person. The Chief Justice of the US presides over the proceedings in the case of any impeachment of a president. The result of conviction is removal of the civil officer from office.

8 0

3 years ago