Question

Anyone take flvs; civics. 7th gr? need help on one assingment

Answer 1

I'm in 10th, I'll try to help you.

Answer 2

Okay, I'll go get it. Hold on :)

Answer 3

Local law requires that drivers drive no faster than 45 miles per hour on local roads. The law outlines punishments for those who speed. The penalty increases the faster the person travels above the speed limit. The most severe punishments are for those who travel faster than 20 miles per hour above the speed limit.

Signs post this law on most roads, but some sections of roads are missing signs. Local police stop a man traveling 67 miles per hour. He apologizes and insists that he meant no harm. His wife was having a baby and he was anxious to get her quickly to a hospital. The officer gave him a ticket and told him he will have to appear in court since he was going so fast.

Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? ____________________________________________________________________________

Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or combination? How do you know? ____________________________________________________________________________

Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer. _____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Do you think the new father has a valid argument that he should not have received a ticket? In other words, should government change the law or make an exception? Use details from the scenario to support your answer. ____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
Scenario 2

State law recognizes that the owner of a vehicle is the person or company whose name appears on the title, or legal and official ownership document. The state also recognizes payment agreements that people and businesses make through official, legal means.

A young woman says her neighbor agreed to purchase her old car. She agreed to accept payments from him on a monthly basis until he paid off the car and trusted that he would honor this plan. She signed ownership over to him on the title, which he also signed. She says that he has not made any payments and still has possession of the car.

The neighbor says he understood the car to be a gift and has no obligation to make payments. He did not sign an official agreement to make payments. He says that she gave him the car in exchange for his electric scooter, which is new and gets great gas mileage. The neighbor maintains she just wants the car back now that he fixed it and it looks better.

Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? ____________________________________________________________________________

Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or combination? How do you know? ____________________________________________________________________________

Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer. _____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Do you think the young woman has a valid argument that her neighbor owes her payment for the car? In other words, should government make an exception to the law about the owner being the person whose name is on the title? Use details from the scenario to support your answer. ____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
Scenario 3

Federal law requires that news agencies not publish or broadcast information that could threaten the security of the nation's armed forces in times of conflict. However, the Constitution protects the right to free expression of ideas. Judges use past decisions on cases where the law and rights come into conflict to settle similar disputes. In one case, New York Times vs. United States, the Supreme Court decided that a newspaper could publish information about the military that the president said should remain secret to protect the troops. The justices said the president failed to prove that the information could threaten the nation's security.

Federal officials accuse an online newspaper of violating the law against publishing secret information about the military. One of the newspaper's reporters posted comments online about her friend, who is a soldier serving overseas. On her personal website, she posted a picture of him, where he is stationed, and negative opinions of his commanders, including the president. The newspaper insists that the reporter did this on her own time and that the newspaper is not responsible. The reporter maintains that whether at work or not, she has the right to express her opinions freely under the Constitution.

U.S. government officials say that the posting of the information could put the soldier in harm's way. Officials also say that her negative opinions could encourage others to stop supporting the soldiers and break laws in protest. They insist that because a reporter for the newspaper, people could believe that her ideas are those of everyone working for the newspaper. They say the newspaper and the reporter have threatened the safety and security of the armed forces.

Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? ____________________________________________________________________________

Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or a combination? How do you know? ____________________________________________________________________________

Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer. _____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Do you think the reporter has a valid argument? In other words, should government change the law or make an exception? Use details from the scenario to support your answer.







Lol, I know this is long.. But i need help with it

Answer 4

1. Criminal Law, 2. Statute. 3. This law is designed to protect people's safety, if people went faster than the speed limit, they're endangering themselves. Think about it, if a car had bad breaks, or even good breaks, and was going faster than the speed limit, and he was about to crash into another car, but that car is following the speed limit, would he be able to react in time and stop on time? I doubt it. 4. I do not think that the father had a just argument. I understand that his wife is in labor, but if he would calm down, his wife would get to the hospital just fine. And when you know you have a child about to ready to be born, you should take into consideration of how long its going to take to get to a hospital, and take the fastest routes, but he was putting himself, his wfe, and his unborn child in danger. Second Scenario: 1. It is civil law, it's a dispute between two citizens. 2. I'm not sure. It might be a case law. 3. It is to protect people's rights. If you were to be in this situation, you wouldn't want to not get paid. In obligation, the man has it to pay. He took the car knowing full well what was going on. If this law didn't exist, how could you be expected to have anything in return as to a legal payment, because they're not obligated to do so. 4. I believe that she has a right argument. She didn't just give him the car, he agreed on payments, whether it was in writing or not, but it should be. She should have put it in writing, but she does deserve th fairness of getting paid, or getting the car back. Scenario 3: 1. This is a constitutional law. 2. Im not sure if it is regulation or not. 3. I believe it is intended to protect the safety of someone. They are trying to keep the army from out of harms way. But, they are impeding on personal rights. However, it is slander to post opinions in a newspaper, when it is supposed to be facts backed up by evidence. The government did not have any right to go and tell her not to post it, but if proved to be true of her opinions, they could not do anything as to taking it down, she would not be breaking any laws. if we didn't have this law, I'm pretty sure the newspapers would get crowded with their own opinions, and not enough facts. The news would become all opinion, and slander. 4. I don't think the reporter has a valid argument. The government should not change the law to allow opinions into a news article. She has to think o the safety of others, and in doing what she did, she did not think of them.

Answer 5

Oh my gosh.. I didn't expect you to do all of it. Omg I'm so so so happy.

Answer 6

Usually I wouldn't, but it's harder to explain to you on how to do it, then it is to just tell you.

Answer 7

Aha, I see. Thank you once again.