Law Questions and Answers
What should be done to illegal immigrant that work in the usa?
Answers: if they come illegally to work and live immoral then they should be in motion. If they came officially but things expired then they inevitability to be found and a solution needs to be come to. they most credible want to stay but are scared of getting deported
They should be rounded up, deported, and their assets seized to recompense for their trip back.
I got my first take-home pay check today, and they gave me a $1.50/hour "raise", do I ask almost it?
Anyway...I am new to this integral thing, I'm 15 and newly got a post at McDonalds. There are two minimum wages in my province (BC)...$6 if you hold less later 500 hours expierence, and $8 after that, $8 is the "general" minimum wage which most employers pay envelope, the $6 is a "training wage". Anyway...I was supposed to start stale with $6.75, and I only just got my first discharge check and they are paying me $8.25 (and a free meal voucher)! None of my other friends get hold of payed that much and they have be working there for over a year. Do they only just really like me? Or should I ask?Answers: you clearly shouldn't let your coworkers know, at tiniest not right away. ask your boss about it and bring in sure there's no confusion. you don't want to try and take positive aspect of a mistake made somewhere down the line, it's better for you morally and properly. ask a manager or something within private and if nothing else they should reward you for your honesty
Talk near your boss in private. You will be thoroughly well respected for bringing this to his attention. It apparently is an error. If you don't mention it to him, and eventually he realize a mistake has be made, you are liable to pay rear legs the overpayment.
Honesty is the best policy.
yea dumbass go ahead and ask...see wat happen
In the U.S, what rights does a citizen have that a resident alien does not hold?
this is for an essay i have to do and btw a resident alien is someone who be not born here but resides LEGALLY.Do these rights mean that citizens hold responsibilities that resident aliens do not have? If so, what are they? To what extent are these responsibilities moral and to what extent are they endorsed?
Answers: As far as I know a U.S Citizen has the right to vote, know how to travel with a U.S passport, know how to apply for fereral government job and to petition for a close relative to come live to the U.S.and all of these stuff cannot do an alien resident
yea i own to do the same project...
citizens can move freely throughout the county, use a u.s. passport, be protect by military, cannot vote contained by NATIONAL elections, they can however vote in state elections.
i be also reading that R.A.'s have to also enlist at 18, even though they're not legal-so morally they should hold to serve for the country that they choose to live in however, they are not official citizens yet so it isn't fairly legal
hopefully that help you...
if you find anything else...hit me up
Is the costumer REALLY always right?
I enjoy seen incidents when a customer be about to screw themselves over, all right if the customer is always right consequently they have the right to screw themselves over, right?Answers: The customer is other right is a sales tactic not a trial stance. And even then, it is not a upright idea to move about with that point of attitude because customers think they can do anything. Like within one store I worked in, you could clearly not bring contained by a dog, but it was within California and you know out there a dog is resembling a purse, and this woman brought in her dog. Under the customer is other right theory, she would be ok, but our head kicked her out. So under both sale and legal proposition, it is generally a discouraging idea. They only say that exact statistically, a good transaction is worth something like 50 new customers, while a impossible transaction will lose you about 100 customers base off of word of mouth.
NO NO NO the customer is NOT other right!!! i used to work in retail, and it really make me mad when the customer seem to think that they know more than the population who WORK there!!! how do you know what this is supposed to cost? we set the prices, not you, so dont complain, or dont shop near. there, in a minute ive ranted whew! and yeah i guess the customer does enjoy the right to screw themselves over.
A CA state officeholder can be recalled for?
a - treason singular.b - 'misconduct in department.'
c -'high crimes and misdemeanors.'
d -any reason.
Answers: This is a trick interrogate. You do not say whether the officer is appointed to department or voted?
*/End of Line.
What happend to the seperation of church and state?
What happend to the seperation of church and state? It sure isn't happening within the US.Answers: While there is no direct statement contained by the Constitution, it is clear through its interpretation that the only means of access to allow for people to be free from a rule established religion is to require the government to remain nonpartisan in the obverse of religion. The issue arises when the state or some arm of the state acts surrounded by a way that give rise to the idea that the state is establishing or endorse a religion. You can pray in university, but the school can not enact a policy requiring prayer.
The examination is three prong. First, does the state action further a secular purpose? Second, the principal effect of the statute or movement must neither advance nor inhibit religion. Third, near must be no excessive government entanglement next to religion. When you look at it applied, it becomes clear within cases such as Lee v. Weisman and Lemon v. Kurtz that if the government creates law that inhibit or advance a consistent religion, it draws closely to endorsing a specific religion over others. Can you deem of a statute that mentions religion but doesn't advance or inhibit it? It is incredibly difficult.
But as the religious right continues to believe that we need to infuse religion, specifically protestant christian religion, they are trying to find ways around the Supreme Court's interpretations. It is virtuous that there is a "liberal" side that see things differently or we all may be subject to religious rules that create as much subjugation as that we escaped from in England. The unharmed idea near was that a king, ordained by God, could set rules unilaterally regardless of the people's will. Is that really so far from system that sets a religious norm unilaterally from the diversity of the people and requires them to follow it? The perception isn't keep religion out, it is maintain the government from requiring one religion and tolerate people own the freedom to choose without pressure, coercion, or stalking.
You misspelled "separation", and when was the closing time you were required to pray surrounded by school?
Oh, probably you live in Iran.
It used to be the tenet that the theory of evolution couldn't be qualified in public school because it contradicted the Bible, there be Christian prayer in public school, and the Bible was considered a soaring authority in our Courts. Now things own changed drastically...there be never meant to be a separation of God and rule, only a prohibition on a policy sanctioned church!
Runkel v. Winemiller (1799), “Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, within great measure, the peace and apposite order of affairs of state, the safety and brightness of the people. By our form of elected representatives, the Christian religion is the established religion...
the theme of separation of church and state comes from a memo by Thomas Jefferson.
And when you read the letter, you may become incensed as to
why it have been turned around so much by the ACLU
they hold taken his words out of context.
see for yourself
I don't know what you think separation funds, but according to the Constitution, it means command will not endorse any unique religion, (such as the Church of England). No where within the Constitution of the United States of America does it say affairs of state cannot endorse religious philosophy and beliefs.
You asked what happened to the separation of Church and State, but I want to ask you, what happen to the free expression of religion? That right is also in the Constitution, on the other hand Christians are told regularly we cannot pray in public, cannot enjoy religious symbols in public places, and can't even phone those well lit evergreens see this time of year, Christmas trees.
If you can find in the Constitution where on earth it actually states near is supposed to be a separation of church and state...it's not there, near is freedom OF religion, not FROM religion...
What are the laws on starting my own raffle contained by alberta, Canada?
Hi! I want to start a raffle, drawing for a prize, and however much money is made, portions of it would go to a charity and other portions would be in motion to paying for the prize, other portions would be divided up between the business that the raffle was set up at, and the remainder would be profit for me. What i want to do, is set up a raffle for an all-expenses salaried vacation to see the ufc fight in las vegas. I want to set up a communal venture beside a well certain business in my town and set up my raffle at hand. Every time a person purchases something, they are asked if they want to enter the raffle for $1 and a portion would turn to charity as well. The raffle would second about 4 months or so. Would this be allowed? what would i have to do to set this up? Would i want a certain type of license? i want to set this up surrounded by alberta, canada.Answers: Sorry... you can't. That would be considered gambling.
Did you know you have the right to be stupid, properly?
Because of this right, businesses have to protect you from yourself. People are not responsible for their own engagements anymore. So if people weren't allowed to be stupid, would that reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and erroneous visits to the hospital?Answers: Good examine, and I totally agree.
"Stupidity is not a crime, you're free to go."
That would be cool, but I'm not sure that really happen or has happen anywhere but in inherited guy. I don't think that would be impressively safe for the community.
I get to admit it would be cool though! :P
Actually race aren't allowed to be stupid. I was a moment ago studying that for my torts final. Stupid people are held to equal standard of care as the average believable person. If you are smarter than the average all right person, you can be held to a greater standard of care though.
Kids are allowed to kindly of be stupid. They are held to the standards of other kids their age.
Good question. All those frivolous suits aren't going on for stupidity of the person file the suit, but about the stupidity of our legitimate system which is mimicking our welfare system. If you refuse to work and earn a living, you are given a free ride. If you --through no quirk of anyone else -- get hurt, consequently you are destined for millions in damages.
We enjoy already become a society which blames its ills on anyone but ourselves. Will in attendance be a swing of the pendulum? Will there ever be a time within the future that individuals will actually be held in charge for their own actions? There will, if our command actually stops allowing these suits which should never hold been file to begin near. Do I think that will evolve? No.
People got to breed money some how... stupidity is just another problem buinesses attempt to fix or control... someone have to put warning signs on chainsaws that say don't attempt to stop with hand while throddle is applied...
Lable makers win
a dumb-a ss lost a body piece but gained money
lawyer gained fees
The court judge a case
The communication had a story to report
The chainsaw manufacturer got free promotion for nearby product
Its a win all around...
its not right but it works...
Ignorance is no excuse! Legal or not! People near this logic are just apathetic, ignorant, self serving near victim mentalities.
Abi
Oooooooooo! So close. If we verbs stupid people we forget the other portion of the frivolous lawsuit crowd...greedy deadbeats. Yeah, we gotta verbs them too, then our problems are solved. BUT, we drop the stupid and that CERTAINLY should deminish the Stupids' numbers...kinda thins the crowd out.
Ambitious endeavor...I aspiration you all the best.
And thank you for this monunmentous undertaking...we so desperately necessitate it. My suggestion: Focus you attention initially in LA and DC
How is it possible that American Citizens could not stand trial in another country ?
If an American commits an Offense contained by another country, they say ...he should be taken fund to the United States to face trial.Is American Citizens better than any citizen within the world?
Answers: Americans are extradited to other counties to face trial for crimes they are accuse of in those countries on a regular proof.
The exception would be if there be no extradition treaty with that country or surrounded by the case of the Blackwater personnel in Iraq in that is an agreement with the Iraqi policy that they are immune from prosecution for most acts that they commit while fulfilliing their work obligation.
The agreement with Iraq will probably evolution in the close by future if it have not already.
.
Anyone who commits a crime stands trial in the place where on earth the crime was committed. Citizenship is irrelevant, and extradition treaties are irrelevant.
Who is proverb this?
Extradition applies when a crime is committed in a country and the criminal leaves the country. The country next housing the criminal would be required to send him put a bet on to the country where he committed the crime. Countries enjoy every right to exert jurisdiction under the premise of territorialism which establishes that they have jurisdiction over any crimes that come to pass on their soil, within their borders. Some countries deny to enter into extradition treaties because of the differences in law. For the longest time Mexico would not negotiate with us because we enjoy the death cost and they did not.
Under international law, no citizen is better than any other, which may be why America have troubles when it comes to that area of statute.
Where do you get your information? If an American commits a crime within a foreign country, he goes on trial at hand. The American embassy in that country may lend a hand with his official defense or might plead with its affairs of state to go unproblematic on him, but that's about it.
Help!!! on Law Multiple Choises Questions?
Judges are more likely to allow a motion for summary judgment when...a) no above-board issues of material reality exist
b) the jury has resolved the issue
c) the facts nescessary to prove the other party's covering are not provable
d) two of the above are true
The authority that resides in every sovereignty to overrun laws for its internal regulation and governent is call...
a) utilitarian law
b) police power
c) pretrial discretion
d) sociological jurisprudence
A motion for a "directed verdict"...
a) Is made earlier evidence is presented to the jury
b) May be granted if the case be extremely complex and reasonable relations wouldn't be able to agree on a judgment
c) Deprives the jury of its opportunity to determine the facts
d) All of the above (a, b and c) are true
Which of the following is not a duty of the grand jury?
a) Determining whether a party should be brought to trial
b) Hearing proliminary evidence against the accused
c) Deciding the guilt or innocence of the indict
Answers: 1. is d... a and c are both correct
2. b
3. c is the best answer but isn't really accurate. A motion for directed verdict is made after the defense presents its skin and before the jury deliberate. A judge usually will not allow this but will instead let the jury intended. After the jury deliberates and comes out beside a verdict, the losing side will usually motion for shrewdness notwithstanding the verdict, which a mediate will grant if they truly imagine the jury decided the regulation one.
4. a.
What class is this for?
Hmmm.
On the first one, I would go beside D because A and C are true.
I don't know the second one, never heard of it.
The Third one is "C" I would give attention to because it is only granted when the negotiator thinks here is no possible way that a jury could find a contrary punishment to what the judge would agree on.
And the last one is distinctly A.
I could be wrong though. So read up and decide what you focus is best. (Except I know I'm right on the last one.)
More Questions and Answers:
[1517] - [1289] - [2337] - [1298] - [1951] - [1261] - [2567] - [2107] - [2276] - [296] - [557] - [2460] - [2272] - [1636] - [2274] - [471] - [1624] - [693] - [235] - [67]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: