It should be noted that total amount of a product available in a market at a given price is called the supply.
What is supply?
Supply can be regarded as economic concept which explains that the amount of a specific good or service by the producer that is willing to be supplied to consumers.
Therefore, supply amount of a product available in a market .
Learn more about supply at:
https://brainly.com/question/13171394
Canada vs US social justice differences?
Which portions is NHLE currently engaged in?
The importance and benefit of the 'rule of law' as a democratic principle which supports a democracy
Explanation:
The rule of law, defended by an independent judiciary, plays a crucial function by ensuring that civil and political rights and civil liberties are safe and that the equality and dignity of all citizens are not at risk.Similarities between arbitration and mediation?
what are the factors that cause xenophobia
How are forensic pathology and entomology connected? Explain in 10-20 sentences.
Forensic pathology and entomology are connected in their use of insect evidence to determine time of death and other important factors in criminal investigations.
For more such questions on investigations, click on:
https://brainly.com/question/23323608
#SPJ8
1. Define the following terms:
a. divine right
b. limited government
c. Constitution
d. rule of law
e. amendment
f. double jeopardy
g. Federalism
h. Congress
i. popular sovereignty
j. checks and balances
k. separation of powers
l. Republic
m. unitary system
n. Electoral College
o. Confederation
p. parliamentary system
q. Legislative branch
r. Executive branch
s. Judicial branch
t. Bureaucracy
u. judicial review
v. due process
w. Jurisdiction
x. Apportionment
y. Census
z. Gerrymandering
aa. Lobbying
bb. judicial activism
cc. judicial restraint
dd. Supremacy Clause
2. What does pleading the 5th mean?
3. What is the length of a presidential term?
4. Which branch of government has the power to tax and collect revenue (the power of the purse)?
5. Basic steps for a bill to become a law.
6. Describe two ways the Founding Fathers limited the power of the federal government or limited the
power of the branches of the federal government.
In the past, the idea of divine right was crucial in defending kings' absolute power and their status as the ultimate repository of political influence.
Some of the terms' definitions are as follows:
1. divine rights- The idea or theory of divine right holds that a monarch's capacity to rule is directly delegated from a higher power, usually a deity or God. It implies that the monarch has an unquestionable, unrestricted power to rule that is not subject to scrutiny or restraint by earthly authority or laws.
2. Limited government- The term "limited government" refers to a system in which the government's authority and ability to act are constrained by statute or by the constitution. To safeguard individual liberties and avoid the concentration of unrestrained power in the hands of the governing elite, limited government is the main goal.
3. constitution- A constitution is a fundamental set of values and guidelines that explains a nation's rights and obligations, creates the foundation of its government, and specifies its powers and responsibilities.
Learn more about divine right, from:
brainly.com/question/28344378
#SPJ1
What clause in the Constitution allows for implied powers to take place?
state five Function duties of the Presidents as ensuring in Nigerian Constitution
The president of Nigeria is given a number of responsibilities and roles under the Nigerian Constitution. These are the top five duties:
The president has executive authority and is responsible for putting laws, programs, and regulations into effect. commander-in-chief: The president leads the armed forces and is responsible for defending the countryAs head of state. the President represents Nigeria both at home and abroad, upholding diplomatic ties and advancing national objectives. The president is the government's chief administrator and is responsible for ensuring effective governance. the president appoints important government figures, such as minister and agency heads, and he or she supervises their operations to gurantee effecient admnistration and accountabilityWhat are the rights and responsibilities of individuals in a democracy
Research a criminal case that was resolved through plea bargaining, and explain the facts of the case. Weighing the evidence and the alleged offense, write about what you would have done if you were the defendant. Also, analyze and discuss your thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of plea bargains.
A criminal case that was resolved through plea bargaining was the Bradshaw v. Stumpf (2005)
If it was me, i would have argue in respect to Stumpf , in his appeal to the Supreme Court, that the prosecutor is one who has unfairly used theories that are known to be vey inconsistent to prove that both he and Wesley both committed the crime.
The benefits of plea bargains are:
It gives soft justice for those who are found guilty.It helps to remove criminals off the streetsThe drawbacks of plea bargains.
It can put innocent people into prison for false reasons. It alters the efficiency of the criminal justice system.What was the Bradshaw v. Stumpf case?In the case,"
The court was said to have concluded that Stumpf is one that has pleaded guilty to aggravated murder without knowing that particular intent to cause death.
Hence, If it was me, i would have argue in respect to Stumpf , in his appeal to the Supreme Court, that the prosecutor is one who has unfairly used theories that are known to be vey inconsistent to prove that both he and Wesley both committed the crime.
Learn more about plea bargaining from
https://brainly.com/question/19557127
#SPJ1
A company pollutes a river with waste from its automobile factory
A U-turn is not illegal on a one-way street.
Answer:
Umm no duh
Explanation:
What is the difference between Republican and Democratic ideas ?
How and why is freedom of speech limited? Choose one of these categories and explain why you think it is prohibited. Explain your reasoning.
Answer:
what are the categories
Two police officers enter a house under a search warrant that identifies drugs as the item to be searched for. While searching the home for places where they believed drugs would be hidden, the officers find counterfeit money. However, the search does not turn up any illegal drugs. Is this search legal? Explain.
Answer:
Its not ilegal
Explanation:
n general, the police don't have the power to search premises without a warrant unless they have obtained the permission of the person concerned,
No, the search conducted by the police in the above scenario is not legal as the police found the counterfeit money after deliberately searching the places where they expected drugs to be hidden and the counterfeit money was not in their plain sight.
Whenever a search warrant is issued, the police may use it to search only a particular area and seize specific items mentioned in the warrant. However, the police may also extend their scope of search and seizure if an illegal item which is not mentioned in the search warrant is present in their plain view during the course of the search.
Learn more about plain sight here:
https://brainly.com/question/15109018
#SPJ1
Two or more peer passengers more than triple the risk of a fatal crash with a teen behind the wheel. Select one:
True or False
Any help is greatly appreciated!!
How much money may an individual give a candidate for the general election?
Mr. Peters has a legal handgun to protect his home against intruders and against the increasing crime in his neighborhood. One night, Takeshi, a 16 year old Japanese exchange student, walks up Mr. Peters’ driveway looking for a party. Takeshi thinks Mr. Peters is hosting the party and begins yelling and waving his arms. Mr. Peters gets scared, retrieves his handgun, and points it at Takeshi while yelling “Freeze!” Takeshi does not understand English and keeps walking toward Mr. Peters. Thinking he is an intruder, Mr. Peters shoots and kills Takeshi at the front steps of his house. Mr. Peters is charged with first-degree muder. Does he have a defense?
Answer: In this scenario, Mr. Peters may argue that he acted in self-defense. Self-defense is a legal defense that allows an individual to use reasonable force in order to protect themselves from an imminent threat of harm. However, whether Mr. Peters's actions were reasonable under the circumstances could be debated.
A key factor that may be considered is whether Mr. Peters had a reasonable belief that Takeshi posed an imminent threat of harm to him. Mr. Peters may argue that he was scared and believed that Takeshi was an intruder, based on the fact that Takeshi was yelling and waving his arms. However, the fact that Takeshi did not understand English, and was not responding to Mr. Peters's commands may indicate that Mr. Peters should have realized that Takeshi was not an immediate threat.
Another important factor that may be considered is whether Mr. Peters's use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. In this case, it could be argued that shooting Takeshi was not a reasonable response, as there may have been other options that Mr. Peters could have taken to protect himself, such as calling the police or using non-lethal force.
In general, whether Mr. Peters has a defense will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, and how these facts are presented and evaluated in court.
Explanation:
If you were to change the structure of the Legislative Branch, how would you change it?
Answer:For an amendment to become law, it must first pass both chambers of Congress by a two-thirds vote or be proposed by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either in their legislatures or in state conventions.
In a short Summary, What are the Articles of Confederation?
Answer: The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first written constitution of the United States. Written in 1777 and stemming from wartime urgency, its progress was slowed by fears of central authority and extensive land claims by states. It was not ratified until March 1, 1781
Explanation: hope this helps
Describe the role of federal courts in checking the power of the legislative branch.
Present at least two paragraphs describing your thoughts about the course and your learning experiences. Some points to help you:
1. Your thoughts about the format of the course.
2. Your thoughts about the content.
3. Your thoughts about the assessments.
4. Anything else you would like to add?
the course is Law & order: Introduction To Legal Studies
Answer:
Hope this helps
Explanation:
The format of the course was well structured to provide a solid foundation in legal concepts and the U.S. legal system. The lessons on the different types of laws, branches of government, and court systems helped give me an overall framework for understanding how laws are created and enforced. The readings, video lectures, and discussion forums encouraged active engagement with the material and allowed me to test my understanding through interaction with other students.
The content provided a broad overview of legal studies that piqued my interest in learning more. I particularly found the discussions of constitutional law, human rights, and legal ethics fascinating. They highlighted the complexities and intersection of law with morality, justice, and societal values. While some of the material was challenging, the assessments helped me gauge my progress and identify areas I needed to review again. The mix of short response, essay and multiple choice questions reinforced the major themes and ideas from each lesson.
Overall, this course gave me a solid introduction to key legal concepts that I know will be valuable preparation as I continue my studies in this field. The format, content and assessments helped engage me as a learner and stimulated my thinking about the law in a broader context. I appreciated the opportunities for open-ended discussion that allowed me to reflect on how the law shapes our lives and societies. This course has definitely sparked my interest in learning more about the legal system and pursuing a career in law.
Who did Plato regard as a “just man”?
“I declare that justice is nothing else than that which advantageous to the stronger. It follows that the just man is he who obeys the laws of the governing group; the unjust man disregards them. But, the subject who obeys hurts himself and promotes the good of others. It pays, therefore, to act unjustly.”
Answer:
There’s a part of Plato’s Republic (c. 380 BC) which is fascinating because it resembles a prophecy about Jesus. It appears in this dialog by Socrates about the just man, especially in the italicized portion:
And at [the unjust man’s] side let us place the just man in his nobleness and simplicity, wishing, as Aeschylus says, to be and not to seem good. There must be no seeming, for if he seem to be just he will be honoured and rewarded, and then we shall not know whether he is just for the sake of justice or for the sake of honours and rewards; therefore, let him be clothed in justice only, and have no other covering; and he must be imagined in a state of life the opposite of the former. Let him be the best of men, and let him be thought the worst; then he will have been put to the proof; and we shall see whether he will be affected by the fear of infamy and its consequences. And let him continue thus to the hour of death; being just and seeming to be unjust. When both have reached the uttermost extreme, the one of justice and the other of injustice, let judgment be given which of them is the happier of the two.
In a democratic country, is it possible to elect a communist/ socialist party?
Answer: It is possible
Explanation: Yes. In fact, most communists will tell you, regardless of historical examples claiming to be communist to the contrary, that if it isn’t a democracy, it’s no more Communist than the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Korea is a Democratic Republic.
a lawyer defending for someone who he thinks deserves compensation for the suffering the court has give to that person
A lawyer defending for someone who he thinks deserves compensation for the suffering the court has give to that person to argue their case before the court.
What is the explanation for the compensation?If a lawyer believes that their client deserves compensation for suffering caused by the court, they may argue their case before the court. The lawyer may need to demonstrate that the court's actions or decisions resulted in harm to their client, and that compensation is necessary to address the harm.
The lawyer should present evidence and arguments to support their case, and may need to demonstrate that their client's rights were violated or that the court failed to follow proper procedures. The lawyer should also be prepared to answer questions from the court and provide additional evidence or clarification as needed.
Ultimately, the court will make a decision based on the evidence presented and the applicable laws and regulations. If the court finds in favor of the lawyer's client, the lawyer may be able to help their client obtain the compensation they deserve.
It is important to note that every case is unique and the specifics of each case may have a significant impact on the outcome. If you are in need of legal advice, it is recommended that you consult with a licensed attorney who can provide tailored guidance based on your individual situation.
Learn more about court at:
https://brainly.com/question/341135
#SPJ1
If you are stopped by a police officer for driving
all passengers under the age of 18 properly restrained, you can
receive a citation and a fine of.
plus additional court
costs.
$30
$40
$50
$60
Answer:
60 u believe
Explanation:
if im wrong let me know
If a court has jurisdiction over a legal dispute, what is
most likely true?
A The court can hear the case but the decision of the
case is left to a higher court.
B
The court is authorized to hear the case and make a
ruling after considering the arguments.
C The court is likely to refer the case to a higher court
rather than hear it.
Answer:
B. The court is authorized to hear the case and make a ruling after considering the arguments.
Explanation:
The jurisdiction in legal terms refers to the geographical coverage or reach of a case to be tried, heard, and decide on the matter. This means that cases of any legal matter are tried according to their jurisdictional situations.
In cases of a court that has jurisdiction over a legal dispute, the court is at the liberty to hear and decide on the matter. The court can hear the case and make a ruling after all arguments are presented. The jurisdiction allows the court to act on the case as it likes. This means that the court has the right to make any ruling regarding the case as it has jurisdiction over it.
Thus, the correct answer is option B.
Someone else can drive your car if _____.
A. you have proof of residency
B. they have proof of insurance
C. they have proof of residency
D. you have proof of insurance
Answer: B.
Explanation:
Option B states that someone else can drive your car if they have proof of insurance. This means that if the person who wants to drive your car can provide valid proof that they have insurance coverage, they are allowed to drive your car. Insurance coverage is important as it protects against potential accidents or damages that may occur while driving the vehicle. By requiring proof of insurance, it ensures that the driver is financially responsible and covered in case of any incidents. This requirement helps protect both the driver and the owner of the car.
The chart below lists several rights found in the Bill of Rights.
I. 2nd Amendment: [T]he right of the people to...bear arms shall not be infringed.
II. 3rd Amendment: No soldier shall...be quartered in any house without consent.
III. 5th Amendment: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
IV. 5th Amendment: No person shall be...subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...
V. 6th Amendment: [T]he accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.
VI. 6th Amendment: [T]he accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him...
In a criminal trial, which rights are most important to the accused?
A.I, II, III, and IV
B.II, IV, and V
C.III, IV, V, and VI
D.I, III, and VI
Answer:
I believe the answer is C