Answer:
The answer is letter E.
Explanation:
That the defendant could be held liable because he failed to see that those delegated the duty to ensure sanitary conditions did their job.
The branch of government that decides if a law violates the Constitution is the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, has the power of judicial review, which allows it to determine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. If the Supreme Court finds that a law violates the Constitution, it can declare the law unconstitutional and render it invalid.
The judicial branch is that branch of the governmentthat interprets the law, settles disputes and administers justice to all citizens. The judicial branch is considered the watchdog of democracy, and also the guardian of the Constitution. The judicial branch has the authority to render a law invalid if the law seems to violate the constitution.
To learn more about "Branch of the government" visit: brainly.com/question/8480333
#SPJ11
Answer: The correct answer is the Judicial Branch.
Explanation:
The Judicial branch of the government decides whether laws are unconstitutional, among other things.
One concept of American government and politics that this action illustrates is:
This refers to the amendment to the Constitution which protects the citizens from unlawful searches and seizures of their property.
This refers to the legislative act which was passed to protect the country from terrorist acts.
This has led some law enforcement to arbitrarily seize and search property that are suspected to be owned by terrorists and this violates the 4th Amendment.
Read more about 4th Amendment here:
brainly.com/question/3228820
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Over time, some of the measures of the USA Patriot Act have been challenged by state governments who do not wish to cooperate with the federal government. A concept of American government and politics that this action illustrates could be that the state governors or the states legislatures consider that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution, specifically, it violates the 4th. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment states that the federal government is not able to handle a search to any individual unless the government gets a warrant that says that there is some kind of proof that the person has committed a crime or there is enough evidence to suspect that the person is going to commit a crime.
The Patriot Act was enacted during the George W. Bush administration, after the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Since then, the act has created a lot of controversy in the nation.
Answer:
If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.
Explanation:
Answer:
possibly
Explanation:
We use the term the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could possibly be relied on because, if the court deemed that there's considerable evidence there was a probability that the bottler was negligent with regard to the safety of the bottle of soda.
However, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may not be relied on if there's evidence of an absence of negligence by the bottler with regard to the safety of the bottle of soda. In other words, evidence shows that there's a greater probability that the waitress may have mishandled the bottle of soda or was negligent in some way leading her injuries.
Escola might be able to recover damages under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This legal principle implies negligence if an event happens that wouldn't normally happen without negligence. However, the court's interpretation, local laws, and other factors would play roles in the final decision.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a legal principle that allows negligence to be presumed if an event occurs that would not ordinarily happen unless someone was negligent. Escola, the waitress who was injured by the exploding bottle of soda, may be able to use this doctrine to pursue a claim against the bottling company, in spite of not being able to prove specific acts of negligence.
The principle rests on the premise that certain accidents are so obviously a result of negligence that direct proof is unnecessary. It typically applies where the defendant had exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury, and the accident is such that it ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence. Based on the provided details, the injury caused to Escola by the exploding bottle that had gone through standard industry testing and had remained undisturbed for 36 hours, can indeed be construed as an event that ordinarily does not happen unless there was negligence involved.
However, the final decision would depend on courts' interpretations, the specifics of the jurisdiction's laws, and other circumstances of the case.
#SPJ12
Answer:
Managed news coverage refers to the practice of manipulating media coverage for the benefit of a political candidate. This can be done through a variety of tactics, such as planting stories in the media, organizing media events, and working with journalists to shape the way that a candidate or campaign is covered. Managed news coverage can be a powerful tool for political campaigns, as it allows them to control the narrative and present their candidate in a favorable light. However, it can also be controversial, as it can involve manipulating or misleading the public and may be seen as a form of propaganda. It is important for journalists and the public to be aware of the potential for managed news coverage and to be cautious when evaluating media coverage of political candidates.