Answer:
A. <u>Vehicles</u><u> </u><u>going</u><u> </u><u>in </u><u>the </u><u>direction</u><u> </u><u>of </u><u>the </u><u>arrow</u><u> </u><u>must </u><u>stop </u><u>if </u><u>they </u><u>can.</u><u> </u><u>The </u><u>arrow </u><u>will </u><u>soon</u><u> </u><u>be </u><u>red.</u>
Answer:
B
Explanation:
i think so i dont study law or so hopefully i helped somehow
The criteria that law must meet in order to pass the government’s strict scrutiny test to reasonably discriminate includes"
- It must further a compelling government interest
- It must use the least restrictive means to achieve its purpose.
<h3>What is a
strict scrutiny test?</h3>
In law, a strict scrutiny refers to the highest standard of review which a court will use to evaluate the constitutionality of governmental discrimination. In order for a law to pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest" and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.
This standard is the highest and most of the stringent standard of judicial review and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. However, the lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny and these standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.
Read more about strict scrutiny
brainly.com/question/14671704
#SPJ1
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
Good public policy it makes people
