Answers
If a vice president were to commit a federal offense, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach him or her. The Senate has the power to try the impeached vice president.
What are the responses to other questions?If an argument arises between two states, the Supreme Court has the power to settle the dispute.
If you were to serve on the Supreme Court, your term of service would be for life, as long as you exhibit "good behavior."
The commander in chief of the US military forces is the President of the United States.
If a law in your state contradicts a previous law passed by Congress, the Constitution says that the federal law is valid, as it holds supremacy over state laws.
If a state governor publicly puts down the US government during a speech, he or she cannot be tried for treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution as levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. The two ways a person can be tried for treason are: 1) by an open court with testimony from two witnesses to the same overt act, or 2) by a confession in open court.
To propose a new amendment allowing foreign-born citizens to run for president, either two-thirds of both houses of Congress or a convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures would have the power to do so.
The President of the United States has the power to approve or veto legislation.
learn more about House of Representatives: https://brainly.com/question/25965873
#SPJ1
Related Questions
If Congress wanted to pass gun control legislation without having to worry about the Constitution at all, what Amendment would they need to repeal?
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Answers
second amendment
they would need to repeal the second amendment. The peoples right to bear arms.
Philosophers interested in criminal justice may write about whether certain punishments are ethical.
Is this true or false
Answers
Answer:
True
Explanation:
One complaint of political prisoners being held in places like Guantanamo Bay is that they’ve been held indefinitely without trials. What is the primary constitutional grounds this complaint is based on?
Fifth Amendment
Sixth Amendment
First Amendment
Ninth Amendment
Answers
Answer:
6
Explanation:
The primary constitutional grounds for this complaint is based on the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Which Amendment offers protections against being tried more than once on any one charge?
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
Answers
The Amendment that offers protections against being tried more than once on any one charge is the B. Fifth Amendment.
What does the 5th Amendment say ?The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution offers several protections to individuals accused of a crime. One of these protections is known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, which states that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
The Double Jeopardy Clause applies to criminal cases, not civil cases. In other words, if an individual is acquitted or convicted of a crime, they cannot be tried again for the same crime, even if new evidence emerges.
Find out more on the 5th Amendment at https://brainly.com/question/29528178
#SPJ1
1. Alcohol plus affects short-term memory and tracking ability.
A. O marijuana
B. O antihistamines
C. O tranquilizers
Answers
Alcohol plus C. tranquilizers affects short-term memory and tracking ability.
What do tranquilizers do ?Tranquilizers are a type of medication that affects the central nervous system and can cause drowsiness, confusion, and impaired cognitive function. This can include a decrease in short-term memory and tracking ability, similar to the effects of alcohol.
Marijuana use can also impair short-term memory and tracking ability, so option A is incorrect.
Antihistamines are a type of medication used to treat allergies and cold symptoms, and while they can cause drowsiness, they typically do not have a significant impact on cognitive function. Therefore, option B is also incorrect.
Find out more on tranquilizers at https://brainly.com/question/12736097
#SPJ1
Would you say all the sources of constitution in the abstract sense are of equal weight ?
Answers
The weight and authority of different sources of constitution will depend on the specific legal system and the interpretation and application of these sources by courts, lawmakers, and other legal actors
Does the sources of constitution in the abstract sense are of equal weight?In the abstract sense, it could be argued that all sources of constitution are of equal weight in the sense that they all contribute to shaping the fundamental principles and values that underlie a legal system.
However, in practice, different sources of constitution may carry different levels of weight and authority depending on the specific legal system and the context in which they are being applied. For example, in a common law system, judicial precedent may be given greater weight than other sources of constitution, whereas in a civil law system, statutory law may be more authoritative..
Learn more about constitution at https://brainly.com/question/470736
#SPJ1
Privacy rights were essential components to the rulings for a major case involving which subject matter?
abortion access
monopoly-busting
interracial marriage
adoption restrictions
Answers
Privacy rights were essential components to the rulings for a major case involving abortion access. The Option A.
Which subject matter involved privacy rights rulings?Privacy rights were essential components to the rulings for a major case involving abortion access. In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion was protected by the constitutional right to privacy.
The decision established a woman's right to abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy and placed limits on the ability of states to regulate access to abortion. The case remains controversial to this day, with ongoing debates about the balance between individual rights and state interests in regulating access to abortion. Nevertheless, the case is often cited as a critical moment in the development of privacy rights in the United States.
Read more about Privacy rights
brainly.com/question/1189272
#SPJ1
If Anton is charged with a crime and sued in a civil action, how would the civil case
differ from the criminal trial? Please explain.
Answers
Answer:NO
Explanation:
The correct answer is NO.
If Anton is charged with a crime and is sued in a civil action, the civil and criminal cases would NOT be tried together because civil law doesn't involve criminal matters and procedures in civil and criminal trials are very different.
There are lawsuits for different cases, if Anton is charged with a crime and is sued in a civil action, the civil and criminal cases would NOT be tried together.
What is civil action?
The civil action is a lawsuit for noncriminal actions that started with a complaint. this lawsuit usually involves private parties.
Since Anton's case is a criminal case, the case not be tried in a civil action because they don't involve criminal matters. Also, procedures in civil and criminal trials are different.
Therefore, If Anton is charged with a crime and is sued in a civil action, the civil and criminal cases would NOT be tried together.
Learn more on civil action here,
brainly.com/question/499624
2. List three current issues where there is question/conflict about whether state or national government has priority.
3. List your personal opinion on each of the issues in terms of who should have jurisdiction and why?
Answers
Answer:
A Rights
Explanation:
I think each state has their own opinion.
Answer: mark me brainliest!!!!!
The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage.We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants.We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.
Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.
This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.
And this path is not America’s alone. It is open to all. To achieve these goals, the United States will
champion aspirations for human dignity;
strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;work with others to defuse regional conflicts;prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; andtransform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.Why should Mr. Romeri be responsible for Ms. Conley’s emotional happiness? Why did the judge rule his actions unethical? What principles was Ms. Conley basing her belief that Mr. Romeri held liability for his treatment of her? (HINT: Look at the five Decision Making approaches for help.)
Answers
Mr. Romeri felt compelled to inform Ms. Conley that he was capable of having children, which would satisfy Ms. Conley's desire to expand her family.
Why should Mr. Romeri be held accountable for Ms. Conley's emotional well-being?Mr. Romeri is not in charge of Ms. Conley's happiness. Ms. Conley must be responsible for her own happiness. Mr. Romeri felt compelled to inform her that he was capable of having children, thereby satisfying Ms. Conley's desire to expand her family. The judge ruled this unethical because Mr. Romeri led her to believe she would have more children, even though he knew he couldn't due to his previous vasectomy procedure. He only gave her the false hope of expanding her family.
To know about well being visit:
https://brainly.com/question/28210328
#SPJ1
What is an example of an outcome of a Supreme Court decision that was quickly overturned by a Constitutional Amendment?
“separate but equal” facilities
anti-monopoly statutes
restrictions on political campaign contributions
voting age inconsistencies
Answers
Answer:
separate but equal
Explanation:
Brown famously overturned the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which a very different Supreme Court blessed the segregationist doctrine of “separate but equal” as constitutional.
