subject
Social Studies, 13.03.2021 02:50 lekepius3715

2. When you speak of a State having natural rights that the Federal government should not over-reach, you are talking about
which is
right to choose whether to enforce a law.

ansver
Answers: 3

Another question on Social Studies

question
Social Studies, 21.06.2019 21:30
You are a member of the jury for a murder case. the prosecution has presented dna evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene. the defense claims that dna evidence using str analysis with 13 markers is not sufficient to reliably distinguish between people. what do you think? a. the defense is right. str analysis with 13 markers gives a 1 in 1 million chance of two people having the same pattern, leaving a reasonable doubt. b. str analysis is not sufficient. the defendant's entire genome should be sequenced. the prosecution will have to consult a genomic library to make sure their dna evidence is valid. c. the prosecution is right. str analysis with 13 markers gives a 1 in 10 billion or greater chance that two people will have the same pattern. this person was at the crime scene. d. dna evidence is not generally accepted by legal experts.
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 13:00
Which groups of people most directly benefited from song innovations in the song dynasty‘s open border policy?
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 20:30
Supreme court. jim, who is a bit eccentric, says that he is fed up with the way a certain employer in his town treats employees and that he is going to sue that employer in an effort to improve matters. jim also says that he is going to start his case at the appellate court level, skipping over all those "lesser" judges. jim says that those justices will surely hear him out and that he will also seek a jury. although he is not a lawyer, jim believes that the offenses of the employer are so severe that the justices will appreciate his attempt to make things better for the employees involved. will jim get a jury at the appellate court level?
Answers: 2
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 21:00
Karin bought illegal firearms at a gun show. at her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that karin had acted freely. instead, the judge told the jury that karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. who is correct?
Answers: 1
You know the right answer?
2. When you speak of a State having natural rights that the Federal government should not over-reac...
Questions
question
Mathematics, 05.07.2019 23:30
question
Mathematics, 05.07.2019 23:30
question
English, 05.07.2019 23:30