Answer:
El derecho a la vida se exige constantemente, a través del propio ejercicio de este derecho. A su vez, el ejercicio del derecho a la vida como derecho natural inherente a todo ser humano se da a través del ejercicio de los otros dos derechos naturales fundamentales: la libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad. Así, el derecho a la vida se exige viviendo plenamente, en libertad y buscando constantemente la felicidad propia y de nuestros seres queridos.
A su vez, el derecho a la vida también se exige incluyendo el respeto por este derecho en leyes fundamentales como constituciones nacionales y tratados de derechos humanos, que reconozcan este derecho como esencial a la condición humana.
B. Structured,routine life
Answer:
not required to hear the case.
Explanation:
The United States Court of Appeals is also known as the circuit courts that are the intermediate appellate courts. The US courts of appeals are one of the most powerful as well influential courts in America.
In the context, Boyd flies a case against Cathy in the federal district court where Cathy loses the case. She then makes an appeal to the circuit courts or the United States Court of Appeals for a second circuit but she loses again. Now if Cathy moves to the Supreme Court of the U.S. and makes an appeal, the Supreme Court is not required to hear Cathy's case as she already made an appeal in the Court of Appeals of U.S. and The court has made his judgement.
The SCOTUS did not rule that T.L.O’s 4th amendment (searches and seizures) rights had been violated. They ruled that the school administrations search of the bag was reasonable under the circumstances (i.e T.L.O. Being a minor and on school property, meaning that while at school, administration is responsible for the well-being and safety of all students, thus allowing them to search T.L.O’s bag for marijuana). A good way to think of it is that while you’re at school, the administration acts as your parents. Your parents don’t need a warrant to search through your room and neither does the administration if you are on school property. The 4th amendment applies to this case because it protects against unlawful searches and seizures (i.e. searches and seizures that are without a warrant). The constitutional question was whether or not T.L.O. Could be charged with a crime/punished or not because the school administration did not have a warrant. However, because the school administration was acting as a loco parentis (latin term for “in place of the parent”) they did not need a warrant to search her bag. Hope this helped!
