Answer:
no
Explanation:
just because we have language barrier doesn't mean we have view someone differently
Answer:
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Explanation:
The 1831 Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a court ruling between the Cherokee Nation, the petitioners, against the state of Georgia, the respondent.
In this court case, the Cherokees filed a complaint against the State of Georgia, asking if the state has any jurisdiction to impose laws on the Nation. This was because the state has promised Cherokee lands to Georgian settlers if they settle in the state. The court decided that since the Cherokees are a dependent nation, it cannot make any decision as it has no jurisdiction over the case. Thus, this means that the Cherokee Nation cannot have any legal recourse to stop the state from taking their lands. This case was then followed up by the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling where the court ruled in favor of the Cherokee people.
Thus, the correct answer is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Answer:
Two actions which took place.
1) was it a defamation for the publisher - yes,
2) false light? no
Explanation:
It was a defamation of character from the publisher because what he did could cause harm to the young child, One thing is show though the accusation of a false light is a no. And lana can't complain about how her pictrue was made because she was in a public space so no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Answer:
Loose constructionism is an ideological position of legal interpretation (especially of the Constitution) by means of which the judges have the power not only to judge compliance with the different laws, but also to interpret the text of the legal provisions of the Constitution, defining its scope and content.
Two arguments in favor of this position are, on the one hand, that the Constitution is not a rigid law but that it is constantly being modified through jurisprudential interpretations, with which it is necessary for judges to be able to interpret its clauses in a lax way; and on the other, that a rigid Constitution would be easily set aside by society, since it would not adapt to changes in circumstances on its part.
