1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Black_prince [1.1K]
3 years ago
5

***50 Points*** ONE QUESTION

Law
1 answer:
romanna [79]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Human rights are moral principles or norms for certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their age, ethnic origin, location, language, religion, ethnicity, or any other status.

Explanation:

pls give me brainliest

Fun Fact: There are no seagulls in Hawaii.

You might be interested in
Juanita owns unused property in her town. Her city council decides to use part of her property to build a new bus terminal. The
lara [203]

Answer:

is C

Explanation:     due process and just compensation in eminent domain

7 0
3 years ago
Which court takes the burden off of higher courts
GrogVix [38]
“The principles of stare decisis, I think has imposed an obligation on lower courts to be bound by the decisions of higher courts”
= lower courts ( not one in specific)
5 0
3 years ago
When driving you should constantly scan the sides of the roadway and look for signs of movement beneath _____ a)Parker cars b)li
Tanya [424]

Answer:

a)Parked cars

Explanation:

When driving you should constantly scan the sides of the roadway and look for signs of movement beneath parked cars.

4 0
3 years ago
Individual Debate
Rufina [12.5K]

Actually I believe that a guaranteed minimum livable income is not a bad idea at all. In the last democratic debate (USA) between the candidates that were debating to become who was to be in the place of current winner Joe Biden, Candidate <u><em>Andrew Yang</em></u> made a proposal of a Universal Basic Income plan that consisted of small increments of taxes on every sale big corporate businesses like amazon make, and this is a tax under a dollar. If we tax all of these corporations on their sales, we can make trillions of dollars to give at least 1,000 dollars to EVERYONE every month. And he meant everyone, ranging from the homeless, poor, to rich, to even corporations themselves. Andrew Yang also wanted to tax companies that took advantage of robots to manufacture products, as people are losing jobs because of the automation surge that no one is paying any attention to.

People will end up spending that money at stores which  anyway, and the money will circulate and create a trickle up economy that makes so much sense and it's such a simple idea.

So the money is basically given to everyone, and a portion will be given back to corporations. Everyone is a winner without anyone sucking in too much from corporations, as that is what their (the corporations and people in favor for them )argument in defense is.

So that would be the base argument by people who believe minimum livable income is not a good idea. It would be that "<em>taking money from the rich isn't fair because the rich has earned that themselves, and the people that it is being given to don't deserve it."</em>

It's not a very great argument to really be honest though as that is only a believe that is formed by an ideology. That specific <em>"They've earned it themselves, so they do not need to share at all"</em> is a dangerous belief even in a liberalistic capitalist society. Although, Capitalism is a pretty successful ideology but it has its flaws just like Socialism/Communism has.

3 0
3 years ago
What does the Supreme Court have the power to do?
Ipatiy [6.2K]

Answer:

A lot!

Explanation:

Supreme Court Background

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

The Justices

Over the years, various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of 10. Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine. Today, there is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Like all federal judges, justices are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They, typically, hold office for life. The salaries of the justices cannot be decreased during their term of office. These restrictions are meant to protect the independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government.

The Court's Jurisdiction

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).

Cases

When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

Judicial Review

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

Role

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • 2. Salva y Emilio son comerciales en una oficina de seguros situada en un antiguo bajo comercial de 45 cm2. La altura de la ofic
    13·1 answer
  • In the course of stealing and destroying evidence, Monika committed several other crimes—mugging a police officer, setting fire
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following is a legal document stating that whom a child should reside in the event of his or hers parents death
    14·1 answer
  • At the scene of a crime the officer may make an arrest if she has ____________ or an arrest warrant called a __________. Once th
    7·1 answer
  • The rules an agency within the executive branch makes are called:
    6·1 answer
  • Whats the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause?​
    11·1 answer
  • (I'll give you brainliest help me I also got questions on my profile! ) Looking at a lineup of suspects to an armed robbery, Zoe
    14·1 answer
  • A box is 19cm long, 6cm wide and 27 cm high. Can it hold 3,500cm3 of soil?​
    12·1 answer
  • What is the difference between a full-service broker and a discount broker?
    7·2 answers
  • What is your favrorite anime pls answer the question
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!