James Keller was an employee at Radical Boards, Inc. Radical Boards is a surf and skateboard shop that also sells clothing. While employed there, Radical Board's principal shareholder discovered that Keller had created peep holes in the shop's dressing rooms. When confronted with the peep holes, Keller denied every using them and indicated that they were there to prevent shoplifting. The shop manager was told to fire Keller. Shortly after Keller left, a 16-year-old and her mother filed suit because the teen learned, through conversations with Keller, that he had seen her in the dressing room while she was trying on swimming suits. Keller was able to describe her not-generally-seen birthmarks to her. Radical Boards: a. cannot be held liable to the teen and her mother because it did engage in the conduct. b. could be held liable under a theory of negligent failure to supervise. c. is no longer liable because it terminated Keller. d. has not committed any tort because watching customers in dressing rooms in part of a merchant's right. e. none of the above

Answer: States within the United States of America to obey the laws and public acts other other states.

Explanation: The full faith and credit clause of the United States of America constitution is contained in Article four, section one. This clause requires the various United States of America to obey and respects the legal judgements,the public acts and records of other states of the Federation. The full faith and credit clause is essential to the survival and sustainance of the unity of the United States of America,as it helps to create unity and ensures that states help and support each other to effectively executive both criminal activities and other strategic Activities.

The full faith and credit clause in the Constitution requires states to recognize and respect public acts, records, and legal proceedings from all other states. Other significant constitutional provisions governing state-to-state and state-to-federal relations include the supremacy clause, privileges and immunities clause, debt validation clause, due process clause, and elastic clause, all of which establish federal supremacy, assure individual liberties, and provide Congress with necessary law-making authority.

The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, specifically Article IV, Section 1, mandates that all states within the United States must respect the public acts, records, and court proceedings of every other state. This mandate implies, for example, that a driver's license or an adoption certificate that's issued in one state remains valid in all other states. This clause was put to test in light of the movement for marriage equality which sparked debates over the recognition of same-sex marriages across states.

While the states retain considerable sovereignty, the supremacy clause in Article VI of the Constitution establishes that in case of any conflict between state and federal law, the federal law triumphs. Furthermore, the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states, although there can be some differences in how a state treats its residents and non-residents.

Other significant clauses pertaining to state-to-state and state-to-federal relations include the debt validation clause, due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the elastic clause in Article I, Section 8. These provisions collectively assert the supremacy of federal law, uphold individuals' liberties, protection, property rights, and travel rights, and provide Congress the authority to enact necessary laws to execute the vested powers.

https://brainly.com/question/4975837

#SPJ12

Options:

Will matter less than it does in a free society

Is worth the loss of freedom not to vote

Will be an informed or thoughtful vote

Was cast by voters who don't care who wins

Answer:Will be an informed or thoughtful vote.

Explanation:Voting is the process through which people in a democratic setting or Government choose who will govern them. In certain countries or society there are certain laws governing voting in some countries it is mandatory while in other countries it is seen as a Franchise where you can wish to participate or not.

mandatory voting laws are unlikely to mean that each vote cast in an election will be an informed or thoughtful vote.

Answer:

Will be an informed or thoughtful vote

Explanation:

Mandatory voting is an effect of law which requires eligible citizens to register and vote and imposes penalties on those who fail to do so.

Since 1924, Australian citizens over the age of 18 have been required to vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums, and since 1984, voting became compulsory for Indigenous Australians. Since voting has been made compulsory for eligible Australian citizens, an average turnout of 90% has always been recorded in any voting exercise. Citizens that fail to participate in the general elections are  Fined ranging from 20 Australian dollars for missing a federal election, up to 79 Australian dollars for skipping a state poll.

As free citizens, people should be allowed to decide whether or not to participate in a voting exercise or not.  Forcing apathetic or uneducated citizens to vote steers the nation’s political destiny towards populism. An apathetic voter may cast a blank or marred ballot as a protest. Others may vote for a candidate without considering what benefits the decision will have on the nation because they are just being compelled to vote and not of their own volition.

Educating voters on the benefits of voting is a better way of enhancing mass voting than mere compulsion. Sensitization will allow citizens to see the need to vote and make a thoughtful decision on who to vote for.

Answer: $38billion

Explanation:

Mackenzie who married Jeff in 1993 a year before he started Amazon from his garage in Seattle, has said she had a disproportionate amount of money to share, and this makes her the third richest women in the world and the greatest divorce of all time. Jeff Bezos still remain the world's richest individual with a $118billion fortune.

Answer:

No the attorney is not subject to discipline because D) No, because the attorney reasonably believes that the year-end profit sharing plan is necessary in order to attract top talent and deliver competent services to clients.

Explanation:

Without having the best and the brightest there will be no profit to share at the end of the year. So the profit should be shared among all those that contributed no matter how little it is for the success of the cases. And also the profit being shared will serve as a motivation for the strategist to continue giving his best to the firm.

Answer:

Field Training Officer

Explanation:

A field training officer (FTO) is an experienced or senior member of the Police who is responsible for the training and evaluation of a junior or probationary level member.

A newly trained recruit can therefore gain practical experience under the supervision of field training officers

Complete Question:

An unanswered constitutional question about the judicial branch involves

A. who should approve judges and justices.

B. what “good behavior” means, with regard to judicial terms.

C. how a Supreme Court is created.

D. who should appoint judges and justices.

Correct Option:

B. what “good behavior” means, with regard to judicial terms.

Explanation:

"Good conduct" initially means "not bad behaviour" i.e. does not break the law. And as long as lawyers do nothing to catch them at any issue they will keep their circumstances alive. On a side note, I think this agreement was a stroke of genius by the creators.

The proof that judiciary can not be removed notes from the equation all perception of political retribution, indicating that the judge in question is easy to perform his rulings or comments without the fear of failing his work. The judiciary will actually do real things that it believes are.

The process of approving judges and justices, as well as the interpretation of the phrase  good behavior as a constitutional question that remains unresolved.

The term "good behavior" in the context of judges and justices refers to their conduct and performance on the bench. It implies that judges should act ethically, impartially, and in accordance with the law throughout their tenure.

But exact standards and criteria for determining what constitutes "good behavior" can vary and may lead to ongoing debates about the appropriate qualifications and behavior expected from judicial appointees.

Read more about constitution

brainly.com/question/453546

#SPJ3

Answer:

the answer is C

Explanation:

Answer:

Legislatures.

Explanation:

A legislature is an assembly that has any authority to make and pass laws of a state and a country. In simple words, a legislature is also considered a lawmaking branch of the government. The term legislature is a combination of two terms 'Legg' that means 'law' and 'lature' means 'place.'

The other function performed by the legislature is the U. S. constitution is to decide the time, place, and manner of the elections.

So, the correct answer is the legislature.

Answer:Maryland

Explanation:

They were the last, who ratified them on March 1st, 1781.

Answer:

The chief justice would preside

Answer:The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Explanation:

Answer:  (A) The two parties are unable to communicate.

(B) The externality is small.

(D) No applicable property law exists.

(E) Many individuals are impact

Explanation:

The coarse theorem suggests that when two parties are able to bargain with each other to reach a common conclusion and reach to an agreement that efficiently addresses the extrernalities. According to the theorem  conditions like low transaction cost and well explained property rights are required. If the conditions are favorable, the bargaining parties will reach upto an agreement. But in reality the transaction cost exists and the individuals of the two parties are not able to resolve the problems.

The circumstances like lack of communication between the two parties will affect the agreement and common interest between the two parties, the externalities found to be small, no proper property laws exists this will affect the terms of agreement, no claim can be made and if many parties are involved then the agreement will become difficult.

The Coase theorem, developed by Ronald Coase, may fail under certain conditions, including when the two parties can't communicate, when there is no applicable property law, or when many individuals are impacted by the externality.

The Coase theorem, an economic theory, proposed by Ronald Coase, posits that in conditions of complete property rights and zero transaction costs, two parties can efficiently negotiate optimal outcomes related to an externality. However, it may fail under certain circumstances. The options provided in the question, which represent these circumstances, are :

https://brainly.com/question/34414625

#SPJ3

Answer:

Explanation:

The second article of Section 2 of US constitution says that president should  nominate the ambassador, public consuls , public ministers and other officers of US.

The appointment clause allows the president to appoint the cabinet officers. Senate controls the appointment process and the rules for nomination vote to get to the Senate floor.

If the Senate is not in session then the president can appoint officers directly without using recess appointment powers.

Answer:

The formal amendment procedure reflects federalism by taking place at the national level as well as ratification and approval at the state level.

Explanation:

The Constitution makes provision that an amendment may be provided either by the Congress with a two-thirds popular vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate house or by a constitutional conference which can be proposed by two-thirds of the State legislatures. so the amendment amendment process reflects federalism by taking place at the national stage and ratification at the state point.

Answer:

A jury is a Group of people who decide a case after hearing the evidence

Answer:

Power of the court to determine constitutionality of a government action.

Explanation: Judicial review is a process that takes place in a Democratic Government, where the courts are empowered to be able to evaluate and review the activities of Government and other parties with the aim of ensuring that justice prevails. Judicial review proves that and every other person or organisation is restricted in what it may do as it regards the law and every person has rights which the government or any other party cannot take away from them.

The constitutional principle of judicial review provides that the judiciary, particularly in the United States, has the authority to review and assess the constitutionality of laws, acts, and government actions.

This power, established by landmark cases such as Marbury v. Madison in 1803, allows the judiciary to declare laws or actions unconstitutional and, as a result, null and void. Judicial review is a fundamental element of the system of checks and balances, ensuring that the legislative and executive branches of government operate within the bounds of the constitution.

It helps safeguard individual rights and uphold the rule of law. It serves as a critical mechanism for protecting citizens' rights and limiting potential government overreach by ensuring that all actions align with the constitution's provisions.

Know more about judicial review here

https://brainly.com/question/28179489

#SPJ12

Answer:

If this is a true or false question then the answer is false

there are many ways a trial can still be had; here is one example...

Explanation:

A murder conviction without a body is an instance of a person being convicted of murder despite the absence of the victim's body. Circumstantial and forensic evidence are prominent in such convictions. ... In all cases, unless otherwise noted, the remains of the victims were never recovered.

hope this helps :)

may I get brainliest please?

Answer:

Explanation:

Initially, the U.S Constitution provided that the members of the Senate would be elected directly by state legislatures. However, with time, different political interest groups gained control over the state legislatures.

In response to this, reformers started to question on the viability of such procedure of electing senates by powerful state legislatures. Therefore, 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed on April 8, 1913 which mandated direct election of Senators by the citizens of the states. It invalidated state legislature's power to elect state senators and aimed to end Senate's millionaire's club who were serving rich private interests.

Answer:

because, the court believes the issue is political rather than legal and should be handled by state and national government.

Explanation:

A republican form of government is one in which the political authority that is operational comes from the people. As seen in the United States of America, power is given to the government of the area by the citizens through its elected representatives. This is visibly spelt out in the constitution of the country and the third president of the U.S, Thomas Jefferson, asked the colonists at that time to move away from monarchy and become republican citizens themselves.

The supreme court of the country decided not to get involved in the definition of the term “republican form of government” because they rightly see the issue to be political in nature rather than legal and they expect the state and national government to handle it.

The Supreme Court has refused to define the term 'Republican form of government' because it is a complex and subjective concept, which allows for flexibility and adaptability. Instead, the Court focuses on interpreting and applying the principles and provisions of the Constitution to protect individual rights and maintain the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court has refused to define the term Republican form of government because it is a complex and subjective concept that can have different interpretations. By not providing a specific definition, the Court allows for flexibility and adaptability as society and governance evolve.

Additionally, defining a specific form of government could hinder the ability of Congress and the Executive branch to make decisions and implement policies, as it could be seen as infringing on their powers.

Instead, the Court has focused on interpreting and applying the principles and provisions of the Constitution to ensure the protection of individual rights, promote democratic processes, and maintain the separation of powers.

https://brainly.com/question/11245869

#SPJ12

Answer:

Harriet Tubman, born Araminta Ross, was a black slave who escaped to the North and gained freedom. She then later on acted as a guerrilla soldier, conductor for the Underground Railroad and helping hundreds escape slavery. She later became a spy and worked for the Union during the Civil war, after which she worked relentlessly as an abolitionist and helped make a safe world for the Black people.

Explanation:

Harriet Tubman was a black slave woman who escaped her master's farm and became a leading abolitionist, helping free hundreds of slaves like her. She was born into slavery but couldn't become free despite marrying a free black man. She then openly started opposing the slavery system, escaping to the North and gaining her freedom.

Not sufficed with her freedom, she returned back to the plantations to try to help her family escape the slavery system. But despite her husband already marrying someone else, she still conducted escape routes and brought hundreds of slaves to the North through a series of secret houses, helpers and other means. She helped her parents escape slavery, became the "conductor' of the  Underground Railroad, which was a network of people who helped save slaves gain freedom. She later became the first African American woman to serve in the American Civil War, working as a nurse, spy and even a guerrilla soldier.

Final answer:

Harriet Tubman is known for her heroic efforts in leading over 300 enslaved people to freedom via the Underground Railroad, for being a strong abolitionist, and for serving the Union during the Civil War as a nurse, scout, and spy.

Explanation:

Harriet Tubman is renowned for her significant role in aiding enslaved individuals on their journey to freedom. An escaped enslaved person herself, Tubman courageously made 13 trips to the South to help over 300 people escape via the Underground Railroad, an intricate network of secret routes and safe houses. Her dedication and success in these efforts earned her the moniker "Moses" of her people, likening her to the Biblical figure who led his people to freedom.

Beyond her work with the Underground Railroad, Tubman was also a prominent abolitionist who spoke against the atrocity of slavery and strived for the liberation and betterment of her people. Harriet Tubman's legacy extends further as a nurse, scout, and spy for the Union during the Civil War, where she continued her fight for freedom and justice.

Her life and deeds were so impactful that William J. Moses published Sarah H. Bradford's book Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman in 1869, further immortalizing Tubman's heroism and the indomitable spirit she demonstrated in the face of great adversity.

Answer:

c. Dawn would have been obligated to assist Sarah under the European bystander rule

Explanation:

The bystander rule is a type of rule which states that a person generally has no legal obligation to rescue, save or assist another (victim) who is in danger or at risk, even if the society imposes a moral responsibility to act as such.

This is known as the American bystander rule and is opposite from the European rule which mandates intervention and assistance, the European version of this rule is called the Good Samaritan rule

so under the European bystander/Good Samaritan rule, Dawn would have been obligated to assist Sarah.

The correct answer is c. Dawn would not have been obligated to assist Sarah under the European bystander rule. The American bystander rule holds that individuals are not legally obligated to provide assistance in an emergency situation. However, Good Samaritan laws protect individuals who voluntarily provide aid from being held liable for any harm caused, as long as the aid given was done in good faith.

The correct answer is c. Dawn would not have been obligated to assist Sarah under the European bystander rule.

The American bystander rule holds that individuals are not legally obligated to provide assistance in an emergency situation. However, Good Samaritan laws protect individuals who voluntarily provide aid from being held liable for any harm caused, as long as the aid given was done in good faith. European countries typically do not have a similar bystander rule that would impose a legal obligation to help in such situations.

Depending on the state in which Dawn was in, state law might have also required her to assist Sarah. Some states in the U.S. have laws that impose a duty to rescue, which can vary in terms of when it applies and what penalties may be imposed if the duty is not fulfilled.

Answer:

The Intolerable Acts were punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea Party. The laws were meant to punish the Massachusetts colonists for their defiance in the Tea Party protest in reaction to changes in taxation by the British to the detriment of colonial goods.

Answer:

Showed that FDR's conservative opponents could effectively block his proposals

Explanation:

This is the option that best explains why the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 (also "Court-Packing Bill) is notable in FDR's New Deal. This bill was a legislative initiative that was proposed by the President in order to add more justices to the Supreme Court. This would effectively allow FDR to have more control over the rulings of the Supreme Court. This bill is notorious because it showed that FDR's opponents would do anything to effectively block his proposals.

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, or 'Court-Packing Bill', was a controversial proposal by President Roosevelt to benefit his New Deal programs by adding more justices to the U.S Supreme Court. It didn't enforce retirement for aging justices but provided for additional appointments. It faced hefty opposition, demonstrating the effectiveness of FDR's conservative opponents in blocking his proposals.

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known as the 'Court-Packing Bill', is a significant chapter in the history of FDR's New Deal. This bill was a proposal by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S Supreme Court. His intention was to ensure a judiciary favorable to his New Deal programs that had often been struck down by the Supreme Court. Contrary to the claim, this bill didn't enforce retirement but allowed the president to appoint a new justice for any justice over the age of 70 who chose not to retire. The proposal faced widespread opposition and wasn't successful. It showed that FDR's conservative opponents could effectively block his proposals, thus providing insight into the political dynamics of that era.

https://brainly.com/question/1097884

#SPJ3

Answer:

When the supreme court wants to hear a case they issue a  summon.

Explanation:

Summons: This is a paper that tells a defendant that he or she is being sued and asserts the power of the court to hear and determine the case. A form of legal process that commands the defendant to appear before the court on a specific day and to answer the complaint made by the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court functions as a last resort tribunal. Its rulings cannot be appealed. It also decides on cases dealing with the interpretation of the constitution. (for example, it can overturn a law passed by Congress if it deems it unconstitutional)

Answer:

writ of certiorari

Explanation:

Writ of certiorari is a court process issued when a higher court wants to review the decision made by a lower court on a particular case. When this is issued a higher court is asking a lower court to send their record for review.

Writ of certiorari is filed by someone or a group appealing to the supreme Court against the decision made at the lower court. Should in case four justice agrees that the case be reviewed then the case will be hear in court.

Answer:so that person is not guilty

Explanation:

Answer:

It is FALSE that State employment laws cannot forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation because discrimination based on sexual orientation is not expressly forbidden under federal civil rights law.

Explanation:

Employment law ;is the area of law that governs the employer-employee relationship.This area is made up of both state and federal laws and includes many different subjects with the common goal to protect workers' rights. For employees, these laws work to: Prevent discrimination. Promote health and safety.

Federal Civil Rights Laws; Protect Equal Access.They prohibit discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.

Answer:

Explanation:

Answer: EDGAR means Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval

Explanation:

It is a system used at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

EDGAR is the primary system for submissions by companies and others who are required by law to file information with the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC.

EDGAR also benefits investors, corporations, and the U.S. economy by increasing the efficiency, transparency.

Answer: The Roe V. Wade decision was based upon women’s right to make their own decision when it came to pregnancy. Which can be classified as civil rights or women’s rights.

Explanation:

The decision made in the Roe v. Wade case gave women the right to choose if they wanted an abortion or not.

Answer:B

Explanation:

Under the UCC, Garage Prefabricators is entitled to resell the portable garages and recover any damages due to Hiway Truck Service Center's breach of contract.

In a scenario where a buyer, such as Hiway Truck Service Center, refuses delivery and cancels the contract for goods, specifically portable garages, the seller, Garage Prefabricators, Inc., has certain rights under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Under the UCC, the seller is typically entitled to both resell the goods and recover any damages from the buyer for the breach of contract. This includes any loss resulting from the difference between the original contract price and the market price at the time of the breach, as well as any incidental damages incurred as a result of the buyer's refusal to accept the goods. Therefore, the correct answer to the given situation would be option (b): Garage Prefabricators is entitled to resell the garage and recover any damages from Hiway Truck Service Center.

https://brainly.com/question/25930552

#SPJ2