GBA 231 COMPLETE WEEK DQ PACK LATEST-SAINT LEO
Visit Below Link, To Download This Course:
GBA 231 Complete Week DQ Pack Latest-Saint Leo
GBA231
GBA 231 Module 1 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo
In the United States, the Supreme Court has the final say
concerning any law or dispute in the land. The decisions by the U.S. Supreme
Court may not be appealed and become the law of the land the instant the
opinions are made public by publication of the document. No other branch of the
government has the absolute final say on any issue, legal or otherwise.
Further, members of the Supreme Court are not elected by the
public but rather are appointed for life by the President and Senate and cannot
be removed by less than a 2/3 vote of the United States Congress.
For your discussion in this module, we will use the basic debate
form. The proposition set forth is this: “The United States Supreme Court
powers are appropriate and essential. No other legal form or entity could exist
superior to our system.”
GBA 231 Module 2 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo
Unlike many English language constitutions, the United States
Constitution specifically provides for a mechanism for the government to involuntarily
take private real property from its citizens. The only requirement that the
government must show is that the taking is for a “public” purpose.
There is no requirement that the taking be “necessary” or even
“reasonable.” Any stated government purpose suffices. If the public purpose is
demonstrated, then the government, state or federal, may take the property and
provide the previous owner with “fair value” or compensation for the taking.
For your discussion in this module, we will use the basic debate
form. The proposition set forth is this: “The United States Supreme Court
taking powers for real property are just and necessary. No modifications need
exist to the takings clause at this time.”
Until 1677 and the creation of the Statute of Frauds in England,
all contracts could be either written or oral and yet be equally binding on the
parties. After 1677, the law required certain types of contracts (such as
contracts to buy or sell land) to be both made in writing and executed with the
physical signatures of all of the parties involved.
At any time thereafter, either party could challenge
authenticity of the physical signature of his/her own handwriting or the
handwriting of the other party.
Recently, with the increase of eCommerce, electronic signature
(non-physical) has become as equally binding as the physical signature with
severe limitation allowed in challenging the authenticity.
Has this developed out of necessity, or have we simply moved too
far with the law accommodating the digital age?
Comments
Post a Comment