But people still need to recognise we have an institutional responsibility to do oversight on the President” Garry Bass, Congress. This quote supports my view on the Congress being a watchdog. If the Congress is a lapdog, the President can have a free ride on running the country how he wishes and not represent the people’s view. However that is not the case as the President cannot do everything which pleases him. However, looking at the statistics such as Bill Clintons presidency, in the first 2 years which was a united government, Congress exercised limited oversight, and when needed to, asked softball questions, however , when Republicans took over Congress, things got much harder as they seek to hold the President to account, and after a while, impeach.
This tattoo is known as a sleeve tattoo and is one in which the uniform could not cover completely. Mrs. Baker ordered Natalie to immediately remove the tattoo or she would be fired. Mrs. Baker informed Natalie that tattoos are not part of this establishment that she would lose customers which would untimely cause a loss in revenue. In addition that tattoos are not part of the uniform. The issues in this case did Mrs. Baker provide proof of Natalie’s appearance having a negative effect on the business causing sales and profits to go down?
Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, it would seem that justice would be better served if they too were killed as they had planned to kill another human being. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims and this should be altered.
Brown reports. "We have been basically selling every single thing we make," Mr. Fifer said on the call. But gun control is still one of Feinstein's highest priorities. She authored the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004 because Congress did not reauthorize it. One question being asked is how effective a ban on assault weapons would be in curbing gun violence.
She believes that the mothers that use infanticide as a legal defense basically use that as an excuse in order to avoid a life time sentence in jail. Grant also says that Canada should think about scraping the infanticide law and focus on sentencing the woman accused of this crime more appropriately. In addition, another legal representative that is against infanticide is Jennifer Woollcombe, Crown Counsel as of 2010. Woollcombe’s argument is that when the law of infanticide was enacted in 1948, there was a much greater social stigma surrounding infanticide and how it was considered such a great sin. She believes that this defense for murder should be abolished completely because it is
She is unhappy about the unnecessary expense this statute imposes on her business and intends to file suit against the state of Confusion in an attempt to overturn the statute. In this paper I will discuss, which court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and whether the statute set-up by the state of Confusion is constitutional. I will list the stages in a civil suit and explore what provisions of the United States Constitution will be functional by the courts to determine the statute’s validity. Because the state of Confusion set- up this law, most likely they will not bulge in changing the law. Especially if one views that Tanya Trucker is the only complainant.
You’re not going to only have to deal with shame if you commit a crime because it doesn’t work like that anymore. There are going to be fines, restrictions, and jail time depending on the severity of the crime. There is another way in which shame can be a great thing and that is from preventing crimes. If you’re somebody who cares about their reputation and how they are looked at then you might think twice before committing a crime because you know that you’ll
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
McDonald’s negligence of the brewing of the coffee at such high temperatures shows that they disregard the reasonable care that they owe to their consumers. This was not the first time that a consumer of McDonald’s coffee had been injured, there had been 700 victims before Mrs. Liebeck case and that showed that McDonalds had no intention on reducing the temperature of their coffee which again shows negligence on behalf of McDonalds. Mrs. Liebeck was a very sincere and a nice person as observed by the video her intention
A Significant Tort Case McDonald's coffee case: An American court case that became a cause célèbre for advocates of tort reform. An 81-year old woman received 3rd degree burns from spilled coffee purchased from the restaurant chain and sued to recover her costs. The coffee that patrons bought at the drive-through, it turns out, was heated to be much hotter than the coffee they served inside was. The jury found the conduct of McDonald's so objectionable that they not only awarded her compensatory damages, but awarded the woman millions of dollars in punitive damages. Many casual observers considered this excessive.