Answer:
Individual Privacy vs. National Security The need to protect National Security is far more important than individual privacy. The country is the freedom that we have. That freedom and the right to live freely is protected by various government agencies. From time to time, the privacy a person has may have to be invaded to guarantee the security of the country and other citizens.
Answer:
The answer would be A.
Explanation:
A sale is permanent while something like leasing/renting is a form of temporary ownership unless the consumer happens to purchase the item in the future.
Answer:
United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrant less search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.
Explanation:
Answer:
Yes, if California court have a long-arm statute.
Explanation:
In the context, Shirley Jones who is an entertainer files a lawsuit against a news agency, named the National Enquirer Inc. for invasion of privacy, defamation and infliction of emotional distress in the court of California.
The National Enquirer Inc. has its main business place at Florida while Shirley Jones is a resident of California. But The National Enquirer circulates about 600,000 copies of its national weekly in California.
Now, according to the Supreme Court, if a court has a long-arm statute, which refers to the jurisdiction of a court over a non resident or an defendant of an out-of-state corporation. Any state are allowed to perform this jurisdiction, if the government or the state can proved or show that the defendant have some at least minimum connection with the forum state.
Answer:
the Checks and Balances system.
Explanation:
this should be right
