Comment removed check back later
Explanation:
Grand old party forms = February 1854
Lincoln runs on anti-slavery campaign = fall of 1854
Republicans nominate Lincoln = may 1860
Lincoln becomes president = 1861
US begins westward expansion = 1870s
Activities that give rise to <u> strict liability </u>are maintaining a dangerous animal, engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity, and manufacturing or distributing a defective product
Explanation:
Strict liability can be defined as the doctrine that makes a person liable even if the person did not act with fault or negligence
<u>This Liability imposes legal responsibility for injuries and damages even if the defendant who was found liable is without fault</u>
<u></u>
Activities that give rise to <u> strict liability </u>are maintaining a dangerous animal, engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity, and manufacturing or distributing a defective product.
<u>Selling Alcohol to a minor,having sex with a minor are few example of Strict Liability</u>
Answer:
Republicans express intensely negative views of “socialism” and highly positive views of “capitalism.”
By contrast, majorities of Democrats view both terms positively, though only modest shares have strong impressions of each term.
Overall, a much larger share of Americans have a positive impression of capitalism (65%) than socialism (42%), according to a new survey by Pew Research Center.
There are large partisan differences in views of capitalism: Nearly eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (78%) express somewhat or very positive reactions to the term, while just over half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (55%) say they have a positive impression.
But these differences are dwarfed by the partisan gap in opinions about socialism. More than eight-in-ten Republicans (84%) have a negative impression of socialism; a 63% majority has a very negative view. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (65%) have a positive view of socialism, but only 14% have a very positive view.
The survey, conducted April 29-May 13, 2019, also asked adults about their impressions of several other terms: “libertarian,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “conservative.” Republicans and Democrats diverge in their impressions of progressive, liberal and conservative, but express similar views of libertarian.
Nonaccidental physical injuries children suffer at the hands of their parents occur along a continuum that ranges from mild to severe. At the outer edges of this continuum, one might find, on the one hand, a slight swat to the buttocks, and on the other, a brutal beating. In the United States, the normative consensus appears to be that outsiders to the family are appropriately concerned only when the physical injury at issue causes serious harm; any injury short of a serious one is exclusively “family business.”Consistent with this consensus, all states’ laws permit the use of “reasonable” corporal punishment; simultaneously, they all prohibit non accidentally inflicted serious injury. The latter is generally denominated abuse, although some states classify milder but still impermissible injuries as neglect, or simply “inappropriate discipline.” Thus, being able to distinguish between reasonable corporal punishment and maltreatment—whether this is formally denominated abuse or neglect—is critical for the relevant actors: parents who use corporal punishment as a disciplinary tool, child protective services (CPS) staff who are required by statute to intervene in the family to protect children subject to or at risk of abuse, and courts adjudicating issues arising in connection with these cases. The integrity of the distinction and of the methodology employed to make it is also critical for a society that is prominently committed to both family autonomy and child welfare, and in particular to protecting the integrity of the family when it promotes (or at least does not harm) child welfare, and to intervening in the family when it fails in its related obligations.Unfortunately, few if any states have sufficiently defined the relevant terms “reasonable corporal punishment” or “maltreatment” (abuse or neglect) to consistently guide the relevant actors (those in a single system) in their exercises of discretion; nor have they established a coherent methodology for sorting injuries along the continuum of nonaccidental physical injuries. That administrative regulations and policies promulgated by state and local CPS departments often narrow agency discretion helps CPS itself to be more consistent and may help families know what to expect when they are dealing with CPS. But because appellate courts do not appear to give much deference to agency interpretations of the statutory definitions, these regulations and policies do little to guide the courts’ own exercise of discretion. Moreover, to the extent that the law in statutes and judicial opinions is either less precise or even different from the law as it is applied by CPS, the public and parents are inevitably confused or misled. As a result, decisionmaking about whether an injury or incident remains in the realm of family business or has crossed the line into the impermissible varies, reflecting a multiplicity of purely personal viewpoints, religious and political ideologies, and academic or disciplinary training and requirements. In turn, institutional treatment of and outcomes for children and families are often inconsistent. The status quo has been defended or at least explained on several grounds. The vagueness of abuse definitions has been consistently upheld on policy grounds—specifically on the argument that it is important for authorities to retain flexibility to call injuries as they see them given that, particularly in a diverse society, abuse might appear in unexpected forms.
