Answer: property rights and obligations
Explanation:
The property rights and obligations are those theoretical and legal ownership for the resources. These resources can be tangible or intangible in nature. The property rights are owned by the individuals, government and the businesses.
The individuals can exercise their private property rights by accommodating in the property, hold, rent or sell the property. The property rights can be used for the purpose of market exchange, allocation of the rights of the property and society can affect the efficiency for the use of property resource.
The individuals and the organizations have the concerned rights for the purpose of intellectual property.
Answer:
nonprofit organizations that work at the pivotal intersection of ... The nonprofit strives to put environmental issues at the forefront of ... who enforce their rights and title to protect their traditional territories.
The most reputable out of hundreds of environmental non-profits in ... And with recent stories about the validity of non-profit organizations like the Wounded ... of forest and land, clean water and air, and many other issues. ... Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
In England, the king appointed judges and could remove them at will, so judges had strong incentives to issue rulings that pleased the king to keep their jobs.
The Framers of the Constitution instead wanted an independent judiciary able to act as a buffer against an oppressive legislature or executive. As Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 78, the Framers granted federal judges life tenure to protect them from undue political influence: “In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.”
Life tenure is intended to allow judges to issue rulings that go against the majority or ruling elite without fear of retribution. And these protections are necessary: Federal judges routinely rule on the most important and controversial issues of the day and consider whether state and federal laws are constitutional, raising claims of “countermajoritarian” behavior by scholars and politicians alike.
Public criticism of judicial decisions is also nothing new: Newly inaugurated President Thomas Jefferson vehemently derided the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, perhaps the most consequential Supreme Court decision, which ultimately established the power of judicial review, or the ability of courts to strike down laws as unconstitutional. Jefferson even tried to block the court from ruling on the case by canceling the court’s June 1802 term.
President Barack Obama famously criticized the justices of the Supreme Court for their ruling in Citizens United v. FEC while they sat silently at the 2010 State of the Union.
<em>Hope it helps </em>
.... Pls mark brainliest
Answer:
<em>Unprejudiced discriminators</em>
Explanation:
Unprejudiced discriminators might be those who practice sexism thoughtlessly in their workplace by failing to consider women in certain positions typically dominated by men.
They do not have their own biases, but discriminate when they find it convenient. Decisions based on the prejudices of other peoples.
