Answer:
It would apply if the pot in question was to cross state lines.
Explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
In reality and under the enumerated powers article 1 of the constitution there is no basis for the regulation of marajuana that is not part of interstate commerce.
However, in the US we have a supreme court that has one job, to backstop the constitution against usurpation by the executive, legislative and lower courts. It has utterly failed. We have two members of the court today who have openly admitted that they think it should be scrapped in favor of a more progressive model. That means it doesn't encumber or restrict the government at all. Progressives have been chippng away at your rights for years. Progressives are actually communists, ( advocating policies that can only be enacted under a communist system or that would lead to such a system) most are too stupid to realize it.
There are several points in history where progressives have made big strides. 1937 is considered my many to be a milestone, Roosevelt with the judicial reform act which led to the elevation of the general welfare clause, Bush with Agenda 21/30 Bush Jr. with the Patriot act and of course the judicial appointments by carter, obama, bush 1&2 and of course the clintons.
The bottom line is that there is no law it's a farce. Get yourself elected convince a few stooges to play ball and you can get whatever you wnat.
Answer:
Before the legal proceeding began.
Explanation:
In personam jurisdiction is the authority that the courts have to determine the personal rights and liabilities of the parties before the proceedings began. If this jurisdiction lacked from the court which attends the case then it wouldn´t have the authority to bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate rights over a property.
I hope this answer helps you.
Answer:
D opportunity cost
Explanation:
There is a loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.
Answer:
in both cases the flyer was presented to the barber before the service was provided.
a) no, because Karl was informed about the mistake and the real price and could then still have decided to take his business elsewhere. but if he then agreed to still have the service performed under the now updated conditions, then that is what the "contract" is basing on.
he has no grounds to claim the other price afterwards.
b) no, because the service provider saw the flyer information, did not object to or correct the information right away, but performed the service instead. now the "contract" is based on that agreement based on the conditions of the flyer.
