Answer:
Friction
Explanation:
Friction – a force that opposes motion between two surfaces that are touching.
Answer:
the answer is rule of law.
Explanation:
Selective Incorporation can be defined as the law that has been laid down which prevents state government from creating or making laws that can affect or withdraw the rights of citizens or people in America.
Answer:
review laws, explain laws and then decides if the laws in question go against the constitution
Explanation:
Answer: BY THE THREE ARMS OF GOVERNMENT (THE EXECUTIVE,THE LEGISLATURE AND THE JUDICIARY)
Explanation:The three arms of Government are an example of the constitutional principle of checks and balance.
Check and balance is the concept enshrined in the a Democratic Constitution where each of the arms of Government act as a watch for the other arm.
The legislature checkmates the activities of The Executive to prevent abuse of Power they can summon the Executive arm if they discovered any anomally.
The Judiciary have the powers to interpret laws to bring about fairness and justice for both the Executive and legislative arms.
The Executive through the president has the power not to sign bills passed by the legislature if it is not in line with existing laws.etc
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
