It’s not important in a young relationship but when getting older it can help build and operate one better.
Answer:
The correct matching sequence of the items is as follow:
1. negate, destroy ⇒ a. nullify
2. guideline document in judicial review ⇒ c. u.s. constitution
3. chosen, appointed ⇒ e. nominated
4. head of Armed Forces ⇒ b. president
5. interprets the meaning of laws and administrative rules
and regulations ⇒ d. statutory construction
6. gives power to the judicial system of courts ⇒ f. article III of the constitution
Explanation:
- Nullify means to negate and destroy.
- The constitution refer to the guideline document in judicial review.
- Nominate means to appoint or chose.
- According to Law, the president of the United States is president.
- Statutory construction means interpreting the meaning of laws and administrative rules and regulations.
- Article III of the constitution gives power to the judicial system of courts.
Answer:
can u plz type in english ?..............
Answer:
A. Fails to distinguish between violent defendants and one that no longer pose a danger to society.
C. Fails to differentiate between mental illness that are temporary or lifelong conditions.
Explanation:
M'Naghten Rule is an insanity defense used by defendant's attorney to plead defendant not guilty of crime due to mental conditions suffered during the time crime committed.
M'Naghten Rule states that a defendant will be pleaded not guilty only under conditions when it will be proved that the mental condition of defendant was not right at the time when crime was committed and that he/she was not able to discern his/her actions as right or wrong.
The criticism received to the M'Naghten rule is that it fails to distinguish between defendants who pose threat to the society and those who do not pose threat any longer. Another criticism is that it fails to distinguish between mental illness that are temporary or conditions which are lifelong.
Therefore, option A and C are correct.
Answer:
B. Employers are not liable for the acts of their supervisors, regardless of whether the employer is aware of the sexual harassment act.
Explanation:
In this case, the Supreme Court mentioned that an employer isat risk. That means that the empolyer does nor have a defense when sexual harassment by a supervisor involves a tangible employment action. Courts hope that employers educate supervisors so they do not commit any type of behavior that could be considered as sexual harassment. Also, all employees must be educated so as to understand their rights and responsibilities .
