Section #5- 6 points
 Using the chart below, list four different groups or parties that nominated Presidential candidates to
run in the 2016 or 2020 Presidential elections. For three of those groups, list three of their political
priorities/platform. Cite your source(s) where you obtained the information about their priorities or
platform.

A quarrel may be formulated by a landowner directing the dispute at the local government if they impose a zoning decree, namely if it restrains the use of his property.

For instance, when the district decides to use it exclusively for residential purposes, the owner may feel he is being shortchanged on its value and actual utilization.

Conversely, an affirmatory case from the "public benefit" viewpoint could maintain that such regulation is essential for maintaining the safety, health, and welfare of everyone in the area.

These rules seek to reconcile the rights of personal ownership with general communal benefit through organized and productive land use, countering overcrowding, and impeding any types of nuisance or potentially perilous pursuits.

Read more about property rights here:

https://brainly.com/question/9052855

#SPJ1

There is different Constitutional eligibility requirements and terms for office for a member of the House of Representatives, a Senator, The President and a Supreme Court Justice.

1. Members of the House must be at least 25 years old, a resident of the state they have chosen and have been a citizen for at least 7 years.

2. Persons chosen for the role of Senator must be at least 30 years old, a resident of the state they have chosen, and a citizen for at least 9 years.

3. The Constitution establishes the eligibility conditions for the position of President as being a native-born American, a resident of the United States for 14 years, and being at least 35 years old.

4. The Constitution makes no mention of age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship as criteria for Justices. A Justice is not required to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, although all Justices have received legal training.

To learn more on member of the House of Representatives, here:

https://brainly.com/question/10750169

#SPJ1

A trade-off is a situational decision in which one quality, quantity, or feature of a set or design is reduced or lost in exchange for gains in other areas.

In economics, common goods are items that are competitive and non-excludable.

A tradeoff occurs when one thing increases while another must decline. Tradeoffs result from a variety of constraints.

A common good is anything that benefits society as a whole. The bus, the roads, and the school are all common goods because they benefit everyone and are available to everyone.

A news article on Common goods state that on September 24, 2021 a Craft by Common Goods will be held at a relatively new coffee shop on Youngstown's west side. Common Goods Studio already sells a wide range of handcrafted and local artisan goods, but this weekend will feature over 50 vendors. This event was free for everyone and ran from 11 am to 4 pm.

To learn more on tradeoff, here:

https://brainly.com/question/10895386

#SPJ1

A SART examiner is also trained to gather biological evidence that may identify the perpetrator.

A Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner  can be considered as a nurse or physician Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner.

Ity should be noted that they beeing trained so that they can specialized on the provision of the forensic evidentiary examination and medical support whever it is  needed under the leagal procvess, they are people that are being trained so that they can  gather biological evidence  which is needed duriung investigation that may identify the perpetrator in any case.

Learn more about SART examiner at:

https://brainly.com/question/23446519

#SPJ1

missing options:

gather biological evidence that may identify the perpetrator

make accurate records regarding the crime

talk to the police about the crime

compassionately comfort the victim

The correct match for the definitions provided are

1. E. Claim  2. L. Legally liable    3. N. No-fault insurance  4. A. Collision insurance  5. O. Deductible  6. K. Comprehensive insurance  7. D. Medical payments insurance  8. M. Bodily injury liability insurance  9. F. Property damage liability insurance   10. I. Uninsured motorist insurance

11. B. Financial responsibility laws  12. J. Automobile Insurance Plan

13. G. Rating territory  14. H. Policy limits   15. C. Premium

The Automobile Insurance Plan is about making sure that all drivers have access to insurance coverage, despit their driving history or other risk factors.

This insurance is particularly helpful for high-risk drivers that might find it difficult to get coverage through normal insurance providers.

Find more exercises on Automobile Insurance ;

https://brainly.com/question/30138739

#SPJ1

The order in which Supreme Court takes cases is:

Upon receiving a case, the Supreme Court will welcome briefs with legal arguments submitted by the parties involved. Furthermore, should the Court agree to hear such litigation, it will proceed by issuing of writ of certiorari to the respective lower court.

This constitutes a means of reviewing its verdict. In turn, attorneys representing each party take part in the oral arguments in front of the justices. The latter are at liberty to further examine details regarding the specific case. Finally, all nine judges convene and discuss this issue thoroughly before ultimately casting their votes accordingly.

Find out on the Supreme Court at https://brainly.com/question/1046966

#SPJ1

Answer: vvvvv

Explanation:

1. It depends on the laws and regulations of the specific country or state.

2. Yes, if it is legal and regulated by appropriate authorities.

3. No, if it poses a threat to public safety or is prohibited by law.

4. It's a contentious issue with varying perspectives and opinions.

5. It's a complex topic with pros and cons that need careful consideration.

6. It's a matter of debate and policy decisions by relevant authorities.

It is more challenging to defend a strict liability tort because the  damages claimed by the plaintiff are impossible to measure. The last option is correct.

A tort is defined as an act or omission that causes hurt or harm to another and constitutes a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. Strict responsibility in tort law is the imposition of duty on a party without a finding of fault (such as carelessness or tortious intent). The claimant merely needs to show that the tort happened and that the respondent was at fault.

The fault of a defendant is irrelevant in a strict liability lawsuit. However, a plaintiff must demonstrate that there were injuries or damages sustained and that those injuries or damages were sustained as a result of the defendant's hazardous or intrinsically dangerous activities.

Thus, the damages claimed by the plaintiff are impossible to measure in a tort law involving strict liability.

To learn more on tort, here:

https://brainly.com/question/2669139

#SPJ1

Some of the major judicial decisions of the Supreme Court are Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland and Dred Scott v. Sandford .

Marbury v. Madison (1803) :

The case was about who can ultimately decide what the law is.

It was decided that determining what the law is is explicitly the province and obligation of the Judicial Department.

This judgement provided the Court the authority to overturn legislation on the basis that they are unconstitutional, a power known as judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The case was on whether Congress can establish a national bank, and if so, can a state tax this bank.

The Court ruled that Congress has implied powers to establish a national bank under the U.S. Constitution's "necessary and proper" provision. The Court also ruled that federal laws supersede state ones, and hence a state could not tax the national bank.

The McCulloch case established two significant constitutional law doctrines that are still in effect today: implied powers and federal supremacy.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The question of this case was whether Congress had the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in free territories. A second question was whether the Constitution gave African Americans the right to sue in federal court.

The Court ruled in 1857 that Congress could not outlaw slavery in territories, and that African Americans had no right to litigate in federal court. Slaves, the Court reasoned, were "property" and hence could not be seized from their owners without due process.

The Dred Scott case became a significant issue in the argument over the expansion of slavery, fueling the fires that led to the Civil War.

To learn more on Marbury v. Madison , here:

https://brainly.com/question/29268440

#SPJ1