FILL IN THE BLANK. The ______ is a disclosure law that makes it illegal to use mails or any other means of interstate communication or transportation to sell securities without disclosing certain financial information to potential investors.

Answer: free exercise clause

Explanation:

The Bill of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments in the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights consist of the rights of every Americans.

According to The Free Exercise Clause, Americans have the right to practice any religion that they want. Under the Free Exercise Clause, the religious beliefs of the citizens are protected. Also, the government shouldn't support any religion or become involved with one is as not to bring about controversy.

Priest–penitent privilege

The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, pastor–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilege is a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications between clergy and members of their congregation. The law recognises certain communication as privileged and not subject to otherwise obligatory disclosure; for example, this often applies to communications between lawyers and clients. In many jurisdictions certain communications between a member of the clergy of some or all religious faiths and a person consulting them in confidence are privileged in law. In particular, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans, among adherents of other Christian denominations, confess their sins to priests, who are unconditionally forbidden by Church canon law from making any disclosure, a position supported by the law of many countries, although in conflict with civil law in some jurisdictions. It is a distinct concept from that of confidentiality.

Answer:

“Rational choice” theory assumes that delinquents are constantly acquiring and analyzing information, with their “rational” analysis leading them to the conclusion that crime is a lucrative enterprise where the benefits outweigh the risks.

Explanation: Rational choice theory can apply to a variety of areas, including economics, psychology and philosophy. This theory states that individuals use their self-interests to make choices that will provide them with the greatest benefit. People weigh their options and make the choice they think will serve them best.

No, because an easement not provided for in the contract renders the title unmarketable.

The presence of an easement that was not addressed in the contract renders the title unmarketable, as stated in option C. As a result, the seller will not likely prevail in a suit for specific performance.

Specific performance is a legal concept where a court orders one party to perform a specific act. It is frequently employed in contract law cases. The goal of specific performance is to make the contract come to life. Specific performance is a legally binding contract remedy that allows a party to force the other party to perform their contractual obligations. According to the case mentioned, in a suit for specific performance, the seller is unlikely to prevail because an easement not provided for in the contract renders the title unmarketable. The buyer found out that there was an easement for the public sidewalk that ran in front of the store. Although it enhanced the value of the property, the buyer did not tell the seller about it.

The seller could hold the buyer to the contract, but the buyer refused to tender the purchase price because the title is unmarketable, citing the sidewalk easement as proof. Furthermore, the contract did not specify the quality of the title to be conveyed, nor did it mention easements or reservations.

Read more about valid binding contract in terms of performance here:

https://brainly.com/question/32959753

#SPJ11

Answer:

In general, HIPAA preempts state law that is “contrary” to the federal rule. A provision of state law is contrary to HIPAA if: a covered entity would find it impossible to comply with both the state and federal law provisions.

Explanation:

The statement "Utilitarianism focuses on adherence to moral duties and rights" is false. Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that suggests that the moral course of action is one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure and minimizes overall suffering or pain.

The theory holds that the moral value of an action depends solely on its outcome, rather than on the action itself or any inherent rights or duties.Utilitarianism requires an individual to determine the outcome that is most likely to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

The rightness or wrongness of an act is based on its ability to produce maximum happiness or pleasure. The greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people is the ultimate goal. So, in utilitarianism, the focus is on the end result rather than adherence to moral duties or rights.In conclusion, utilitarianism does not focus on adherence to moral duties and rights,

To know more about Utilitarianism refer here:

https://brainly.com/question/13849032#

#SPJ11

Answer: true

Explanation: Hope I helped!

Answer:

The Constitution nowhere contains an express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances. Yet, it does grant to three separate branches the powers to legislate, to execute, and to adjudicate, and it provides throughout the document the means by which each of the branches could resist the blandishments and incursions of the others. The Framers drew up our basic charter against a background rich in the theorizing of scholars and statesmen regarding the proper ordering in a system of government of conferring sufficient power to govern while withholding the ability to abridge the liberties of the governed.

Explanation:

A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case.

However, the Supreme Court is not required to grant review. Only when a case concerns an extremely significant legal concept or when two or more federal appellate courts have disagreed on how to interpret a statute will the Court normally consent to consider it. Additionally, there are a few unique instances in which the Supreme Court is mandated by law to consider an appeal.

To know more about litigant visit:
https://brainly.com/question/28945859
#SPJ4

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is an example of an Article I court, which is a federal court created by Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution to handle specific areas of law within the federal system.

Article I courts are distinct from Article III courts, which are established by the Constitution itself and have broader jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims falls under the jurisdiction of the Article I court system because it was created by Congress in 1988 to review decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs related to veterans' benefits claims.

This specialized court is responsible for ensuring that veterans receive fair and just treatment in the adjudication of their claims, providing an avenue for veterans to seek redress for grievances related to their benefits.

Learn more about Supreme Court: https://brainly.com/question/18228641

#SPJ11

According to public opinion polls in California in 2017, conservatives were least likely to support a state sanctuary law.

Public opinion polls conducted in California during that period indicated that conservatives were generally less supportive of state sanctuary laws compared to liberals or progressives. State sanctuary laws are designed to limit cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities, with the aim of protecting undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The opposition to state sanctuary laws among conservatives can be attributed to various factors, including concerns over national security, law enforcement, and the perceived prioritization of the rights of undocumented immigrants over the enforcement of immigration laws. Some conservatives argue that such laws undermine the authority of federal immigration policies and may lead to potential safety risks by shielding individuals who may have criminal backgrounds.

It is important to note that public opinion can vary and evolve over time, and the specific dynamics of a particular state or region may influence levels of support or opposition to state sanctuary laws. Furthermore, opinions on this issue can be shaped by various factors, such as political ideology, personal experiences, media narratives, and demographic factors. Thus, while conservatives were least likely to support state sanctuary laws in California based on the 2017 public opinion polls, it is important to consider the potential fluctuations in public sentiment and the diversity of perspectives within any given group.

Learn more about California here

https://brainly.com/question/30374131

#SPJ11

Answer:

cons: From 1976 to 3 February 2021, there were 1,529 executions, of which 1,349 were by lethal injection, 163 by electrocution, 11 by gas inhalation, 3 by hanging, and 3 by firing squad.

pros: no prison

Explanation:

If you discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation, gender expression and/or gender identity your conduct does not violate Title IX and HISD policies against sex discrimination is false

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. This includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In addition, many school districts, including the Houston Independent School District (HISD), have policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Discrimination against a person because of their sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity would violate both Title IX and HISD policies against sex discrimination.

Therefore, It is important to note that discrimination based on any protected characteristic, including sexual orientation and gender identity, is wrong and should not be tolerated. All individuals should be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity.

Learn more about sex discrimination from

https://brainly.com/question/9649905
#SPJ1

See full question below

If you discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation, gender expression and/or gender identity your conduct does not violate Title IX and HISD policies against sex discrimination. true or false

Answer:

Gubernatorial appointment.

Explanation:

With the method of gubernatorial appointment, a state governor will appoint a judge to a particular court, and confirmation by either an executive counsel or state legislation will follow.

The Law of Demand implies that the quantity demanded of a commodity will decrease as its price increases,

According to the Law of Demand, when all other demand-influencing factors stay constant, a commodity's quantity desired will drop as its price rises and vice versa. In other words, the amount that customers desire and the cost of an item or service are inversely related. It is an essential principle of economics that customers' actions alter in reaction to price fluctuations. Typically, it is represented graphically as a downward-sloping demand curve, with the amount desired shown on the horizontal axis and the price of the commodity or service on the vertical axis.

It is predicated on idea that customers are rational and would want to get the most utility or enjoyment out of buying products and using services. When an item or service's price rises, it becomes relatively more costly in comparison to other goods or services, and customers may decide to demand fewer of them in favor of more affordable alternatives.

Read more about Law of Demand on:

https://brainly.com/question/30703626

#SPJ4

Answer: because the mustang is on the right so they have the right away

Explanation:

Answer:

The mustang has the right of way because they got the the stop sign first

Explanation:

The most likely outcome of Taylor suing the Giants for the allegedly negligent warm-up throw is that the case will be dismissed.

In the scenario given, Taylor is suing the Giants for a warm-up throw that was allegedly negligently made. There are a few issues with the case, such as: If the throw was a warm-up throw, then it is unlikely to have been aimed at Taylor directly.

As such, it is difficult to prove that the Giants were negligent in their actions. If the Giants were negligent in their actions, it would be difficult to prove that the alleged negligence was the direct cause of Taylor's injury. Taylor would need to prove that the injury would not have occurred if the Giants had not been negligent, which is difficult to prove.

If the case does go to trial, the Giants would likely argue that Taylor assumed the risk of injury by attending the game in the first place. This is a common defense used in sports injury cases where the injured party knew or should have known that there was a risk of injury but participated in the activity anyway.

Based on these issues, it is most likely that the case will be dismissed. The burden of proof in personal injury cases is high, and it is difficult to prove that the Giants were negligent and that their negligence was the direct cause of Taylor's injury.

To know more about allegedly negligent refer here:

https://brainly.com/question/30258088#

#SPJ11

Answer:

2) a concurrent

A group critical of Ottoman reform and reorganization that agitated for individual freedom, local autonomy, and political decentralization is known as the Young Turks.

The Young Turks were a political movement that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries within the Ottoman Empire. They criticized the reforms and reorganization efforts of the Ottoman government and advocated for individual freedom, local autonomy, and political decentralization.

The Young Turks sought to modernize and reform the empire, aiming to establish a constitutional government and promote progressive policies. They aimed to address issues such as corruption, inefficiency, and centralization of power within the empire. The movement gained momentum and eventually played a significant role in the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, leading to the establishment of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) and subsequent political changes within the Ottoman Empire.

To know more about Ottoman reform click here brainly.com/question/30485538

#SPJ11

Answer:

The the hek does that mean?

27

Explanation:

in the United States, capital punishment is a legal penalty the country at federal level, in 27 States and in American Samoa

Answer:

Investigation. As you proceed through the STAIR tool, the process of Analysis and Investigation can become somewhat circular, as the investigation reveals new information, and new information is analyzed to confirm, disprove, or modify the theories of suspects and events that you are considering.

Explanation:

STAIR tool is the most useful and important tool brought into use in the process of investigation as well as analysis of different theories of events that take place.

Investigation can be referred to or considered as the process of deriving results of an event that has taken place by taking into consideration all the key factors that hold a relation with the event that happened during a given time.

STAIR, as a tool of investigation, holds a great amount of significance in the process of analysis, studies, and researches conducted in the process of investigation throughout the entirety of the process. The suspects are major focus of an investigation process.

Therefore, the significance regarding an investigation has been aforementioned.

Learn more about investigation here:

https://brainly.com/question/12042816

#SPJ2

Answer:

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

UN human rights council

Human rights first

Explanation:

Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.

Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:

-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;

-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and

-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.

The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.

On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:

-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or

-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

To learn more about Testimony visit here ; https://brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults

#SPJ4

The minimum advance notice of plant closings or layoffs affecting 50 or more full-time employees required by the Workers' Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act of 1989 (WARN Act) is 60 days.

The minimum advance notice of plant closings or layoffs affecting 50 or more full-time employees required by the Workers' Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act of 1989 is 60 days. The WARN Act is a labor law in the United States that provides job security to workers by requiring that companies give their employees sufficient notice before layoffs or plant closings.

When a covered employer terminates employment of 50 or more workers at a single site of employment, the employer must give at least 60 days’ notice to the affected employees. Employees who are separated from employment are entitled to certain notice obligations under the WARN Act. The WARN Act also applies to plant closings and mass layoffs that occur in stages over a period of time, rather than all at once.

Learn more about  Workers' Adjustment Retraining and Notification (WARN) Act of 1988: https://brainly.com/question/31088800

#SPJ11