Why would different states in the United States still manifest some different kinds of legal systems today?

Responses

The early colonies could not agree on what other colonies decided to do with their laws.
The early colonies could not agree on what other colonies decided to do with their laws.

The criminal codes present in the early colonies were set up to meet the specific needs of its own citizens who believed it was weakness to accept others’ laws.
The criminal codes present in the early colonies were set up to meet the specific needs of its own citizens who believed it was weakness to accept others’ laws.

After the American Revolution, it took many years for some of the states to set up agencies to handle criminal offenders in new ways.

After the American Revolution, it took many years for some of the states to set up agencies to handle criminal offenders in new ways.

Some territories of the United States were ruled by different countries, so elements of those countries laws remain in those states today.

Answer:

I would say that Glen is responsible for all of the damages that are caused to Hank's land because the cows belong Glen and it is Glen's responsibility to fix things that are broken on his land so that way the animals don't escape. There fore I would say that Glen is responsible for the damages because he failed to keep his cows under control.  

Explanation:

Answer:

B

Explanation:

The answer to the question is D. Litigation. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a way of resolving disputes outside of court.

In the event of a dispute, it is an option to consider before going to court. ADR procedures are typically less formal, less expensive, and less time-consuming than going to court.

ADR includes a wide range of methods for resolving disputes, including the following:

Mediation Negotiation Arbitration Conciliation Collaborative lawSettlement conferencesNeutral fact-findingMini-trialEarly neutral evaluationPeer review panelsIn conclusion, Litigation is not a form of alternative dispute resolution, so the option D is correct. Litigation is the process of going to court to resolve a legal dispute.

To know more about Alternative dispute resolution, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/30332485

#SPJ11

Answer:

a

Explanation:

Answer:

9

Explanation:

Islamic Management can be defined as an emerging discipline which deals with the management of organizations from the area of the knowledge received from the revealed and other Islamic sources of knowledge. Results in applications compatible with the Islamic beliefs and practices.

Islamic management can also define as means conducting activities depending upon the guidance of Allah and following his Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) with an accountable mentality, integrity and skills to achieve an objective.

One of the major arguments in support of sexual registration laws is that it can help to protect society from sexual offenders.

This is because sexual registration laws require sex offenders to register with law enforcement agencies and provide information such as their name, address, and other personal details.In this way, it can help law enforcement officials to monitor the movements and activities of sex offenders, which can help to prevent them from committing additional offenses and protect society from their harmful behavior.

Sexual registration laws can also serve as a deterrent to potential sex offenders, as they know that if they commit a sex crime, they will be required to register as a sex offender and be subject to monitoring by law enforcement officials.

In addition, sexual registration laws can provide information to the public about the presence of sex offenders in their communities, which can help individuals to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves and their families from potential harm.

However, it is worth noting that there is some debate about the effectiveness of sexual registration laws, and concerns have been raised about the potential for stigmatization and harassment of sex offenders who have served their sentences and are trying to reintegrate into society.

To learn more about sexual, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/28267842

#SPJ11

Answer:

The U.S. has a three-tiered structure of courts. The first one or the first level is trial courts. There is the Supreme Court on the second level, and the third level is the federal court. Trial courts or the federal courts look into the state matters dealing with the general public, the Supreme Court, on the other hand, is the highest court of the country, and the federal court is the court to hear the matters of the constitution.

Explanation:

District Courts and Circuit Courts

District courts are the primary or level 1 of the federal court system; the purpose of the district court is to settle the disputes of different states. Also, it is the first place of appeal. They function to deal with civil and criminal cases.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the only institution where the cases can be challenged after being heard in the circuit courts and district courts. There is only one Supreme Court, and it is of the highest order. The Supreme Court can decide on all the matters concerning civil or state.

Federal Court

Federal court works for the matters of the state. Federal courts take into account only the matters concerning the legislature and high officials. They help the state to deal with the matters of the legislation separately.

-Hope this helps <3

Answer: he had an important role in wich he is an adult

Explanation: pretty straight foreword

Answer: The number of representatives per state in the House of Representatives is determined by (c.) the population of each state.

Explanation:

The diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the amount in controversy, the federal court in State A would likely have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

In this scenario, the plaintiff is a citizen of Ontario, Canada, while the defendant is a citizen of State A. This establishes diversity of citizenship, as the parties are citizens of different states (or in this case, a foreign country and a state within the United States).

To meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, two elements must be satisfied: complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. In this case, the plaintiff is a citizen of Ontario, Canada, and the defendant is a citizen of State A, satisfying the complete diversity requirement. Additionally, the note involved in the lawsuit is for $80,000, which exceeds the minimum amount in controversy.

Therefore, based on the diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the amount in controversy, the federal court in State A would likely have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Learn more about jurisdiction  here:

https://brainly.com/question/14179714

#SPJ11

Answer:

yes

Explanation:

The purpose of this guidance is to answer questions that school officials may have concerning

the disclosure of personally identifiable information from students’ education records to outside

entities when addressing an H1N1 flu outbreak. H1N1 has the potential to pose a serious risk to

students, staff, and families throughout the 2009-2010 school year. Schools should work in

collaboration with their State and local public health departments to address questions about

sharing information between the school and these entities. Understanding how, what, and when

information can be shared is a critical part of preparedness.

According to Blackmun's decision, the crèche display violate the establishment clause because it was located inside a county building.

They argued that the presentations violated the primary change's status quo Clause, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an established order of religion…” The established order Clause changed intended to prevent the government from establishing a national church, or from interfering in the political opinions of church buildings.

The establishment clause prohibits the government from "organizing" a faith. An appropriate definition of "establishment" is doubtful. Historically, it was supposed to prohibit country-backed church buildings, such as the Church of England.

Learn more about the establishment clause here https://brainly.com/question/14225350

#SPJ4

The branch of government that is composed of federally appointed judges is the judicial branch. This branch is responsible for interpreting the law and determining whether actions taken by the other branches of government are constitutional. The answer in B.

The judicial branch is an essential part of the checks and balances system, ensuring that no one branch of government becomes too powerful. Additionally, the judicial branch includes the sources of law branch, which is responsible for reviewing and interpreting statutes, regulations, and legal precedents.

The sources of law branch is crucial for ensuring that laws are applied consistently and fairly throughout the country. Overall, the judicial branch plays a critical role in upholding the rule of law in the United States.The answer is B.

To know more about judicial branch, refer to the link:

https://brainly.com/question/1060250#

#SPJ11

Answer: the government is a trustee

Explanation:

Answer:

Cronyism.

Explanation:

Answer:

cryonislism or however its spelt

Explanation:

The classification of negligence is an unintentional tort.

Negligence is a legal term used to describe a situation where an individual or entity fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm or injury to another person or property.

It is considered an unintentional tort because the person or entity responsible for the harm did not intend to cause it but failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent it from happening.

Negligence is often used as a basis for personal injury lawsuits, and the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to exercise reasonable care, and caused the plaintiff's injuries or damages.

In many cases, negligence can result in compensatory damages, which are intended to compensate the injured party for their losses, such as medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

To know more about  unintentional tort, refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/14614720#
#SPJ11

Answer:

I feel as though they should essentially advertise is we need this type of security to feel safe though counterterrisom is something to be focusing upon if we can't feel safe in our own home's what's the point of it at all.

Explanation:

i really hope this helped you out.

Answer:

Sheep

Explanation:

Sheep have two pointy ears and you can see the "fluff" that surrounds the figure since there are visible curves around it that represents the sheep's wool.

The system you are referring to is commonly known as a "per diem" funding model.

This means that a fixed amount is allocated per prisoner held per day to cover the costs of their incarceration, including food, housing, and other related expenses. The per diem funding model is often used by private prisons and facilities that contract with government agencies to house inmates. However, it has been criticized for creating incentives to keep more people incarcerated for longer periods of time, as it financially benefits the facility to have more prisoners. Additionally, there are concerns about the quality of care and rehabilitation services provided under this funding model, as the focus is often on maximizing profits rather than meeting the needs of the incarcerated population.

To learn more about system, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/30560923

#SPJ11

Determining whether Barton took reasonable steps to mitigate her damages would depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable laws.

Mitigation of damages refers to the duty of a plaintiff to take reasonable actions to minimize or reduce the harm caused by the defendant's actions. In order to argue that Barton did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages, VanHorn would need to present evidence showing that Barton failed to exercise reasonable efforts to lessen the harm caused by the defendant's actions.

This could include demonstrating that there were available and reasonable opportunities for Barton to mitigate the damages, but she failed to pursue them. The court would evaluate several factors in determining whether Barton met her duty to mitigate damages.

These factors may include the availability of alternative options, the reasonableness of those options, the feasibility of pursuing them, and whether the plaintiff's failure to mitigate was intentional or negligent. It is important to note that the burden of proof would rest on VanHorn to establish that Barton did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages.

This would require presenting evidence and persuasive arguments to convince the court that Barton's actions or lack thereof were unreasonable under the circumstances. Ultimately, the court would consider the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to make a determination on whether Barton fulfilled her duty to mitigate damages.

know more about Mitigation here:

https://brainly.com/question/31249999

#SPJ11

An FTC order mandating that a business discontinue its unlawful actions.a declaration in which a business offers to discontinue disputed behavior but refuses to acknowledge that it violates the law.

To learn more about FTC order refer

https://brainly.com/question/1414995

#SPJ4

a state can be distinguished from a government. The state is the organization while the government is a particular group of people, administrative bureaucracy that controls the state apparatus at a given time. That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed.

Answer:

Are you crazy this is brainly.us

Answer:

what is that I don't understand

Answer:

Explanation:

As a member of the legislature of a large Midwestern state, suggesting the issuance of a state currency as a solution to the financial challenges and funding for necessary programs raises constitutional considerations. The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power to coin money and regulate its value. Therefore, the idea of a state issuing its own currency might be in conflict with the Constitution.

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits states from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything other than gold and silver coin legal tender for payment of debts. The purpose of this provision is to ensure a unified national currency and prevent individual states from creating their own currencies, which could lead to economic instability and confusion in interstate commerce.

While states have the authority to regulate various aspects of their economies, the exclusive power to issue currency lies with the federal government. Therefore, issuing a state currency that can be exchanged for dollar bills may raise concerns about encroaching on the federal government's constitutional authority.

However, it's worth noting that states can adopt alternative measures to address their financial challenges, such as implementing state bonds or seeking federal assistance, within the boundaries of the Constitution.

In response to the disappointment over low voter turnout in the previous election, passing a law that mandates compulsory voting raises important considerations regarding individual rights and freedoms.

Arguments in support of compulsory voting may include:

1) Civic Duty: Mandatory voting can be seen as a civic duty and a way to foster a more engaged and participatory society. It encourages citizens to actively participate in the democratic process and make their voices heard.

2) Representation: A higher voter turnout can lead to more representative and legitimate elected officials. It ensures that the views and interests of a broader segment of the population are reflected in the decision-making process.

3) Accountability: Compulsory voting can enhance the accountability of elected officials to the electorate. With a larger and more diverse pool of voters, politicians may be compelled to address a broader range of issues and be responsive to the concerns of the electorate as a whole.

On the other hand, arguments against compulsory voting include:

1) Freedom of Choice: Forcing individuals to vote can be seen as a violation of their freedom of choice and freedom of expression. Some people may choose not to vote as a form of political protest or because they feel uninformed or disenchanted with the available candidates or political system.

2) Informed Voting: Mandatory voting may lead to a higher number of uninformed or disinterested voters. Some argue that it is better to have a smaller, but more informed, electorate making thoughtful decisions rather than compelling everyone to vote regardless of their level of knowledge or interest.

3) Practical Challenges: Implementing and enforcing compulsory voting can present logistical challenges, such as ensuring that everyone is registered, tracking compliance, and administering penalties for non-compliance. These challenges can strain resources and potentially lead to unintended consequences.