The erection of an electrified fence on The border between Texas and Mexico

/in /by

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer and The Prize Cases  Congress could not reach agreement on whether to authorize the erection of an electrified fence on the border between Texas and Mexico and has not passed any law on the subject. But it is debating whether to authorize the building of this fence in its current legislative session. Congress, in fact, has been considering such legislation for three years and has yet to vote the proposal out of committee.

The debate in Congress has centered on: 1) humanitarian issues related to having an electrified fence; 2) the effect such a fence would have on United States-Mexico relations; and 3) the cost compared withan  whether the fence will do much to stop terrorists from entering the country.

Two weeks ago the President issued an executive order authorizing the erection of an electrified fence between Texas and Mexico, and he deployed 20,000 federal troops to the border area to begin the work. The President’s executive order states that his action was necessary in order to protect the United States from possible terrorists entering the country at the border between Texas and Mexico. 

Is the President’s action constitutional? Explain.

 

2.  Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir. 1973) 

In an attempt to stop the growth of North Korea’s nuclear capability, the President has placed a naval blockade around North Korea, halting all ships coming into or leaving North Korea and inspecting these ships for nuclear material. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war. The President did not seek congressional approval of this blockade.

What is the outcome if a lawsuit is filed challenging the President’s authority to impose a naval blockade without Congress first declaring war?

 

3.  Hamdi v Rumsfeld and Boumediene v Bush 

Sadly, the United States suffers another attack by terrorists who seized a nuclear power plant and almost caused a deadly release of radiation. They were stopped and captured before achieving success. One of the terrorists is a United States citizen, and the others are foreign nationals. The President designates all as enemy combatants and orders that they be held at a United States military facility somewhere in the United States. The order denies them a hearing before a tribunal that would determine specific facts in support of continued detention. Each detainee files for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court seeking release unless the government can show some basis for their continued detention.

Is the President’s order denying a hearing to all individuals constitutional? Explain.

The administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

/in /by

The Federal Court is the only venue for challenging an immigration or citizenship decision. ge 2: True False 3 4 Question 9 (1 point) 6 7 True or false: The administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is the sole responsibility of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship. 9 10 O True False 12 13 Question 10 (1 point) Saved 15 16 True or false: The seminal opinion of Rand J in Roncarelliv Duplessis [1959] SCR 121 stands clearly for the proposition that the rule of law means no public official is above the law. 18 19 True False Question 11 (1 point) Saved

Law firm seeking a Premarital agreement

/in /by

You are a paralegal working in a small law firm.  A new client, John (age 35) has hired your law firm seeking a premarital agreement prior to his upcoming wedding.  John is the sole proprietor of a pottery studio which provides him with an annual income of $135,000.  He also owns three rental properties which provide him with an additional income of $35,000 per year.  He works 10-hour days, 6 days a week.  His prospective partner, Jake (age 34), has a part-time job with State Farm (< $50,000 per year).  He works from home three days a week.  It is the first marriage for both of them.  They do plan on adopting children and domestic pets.

 

John wishes to protect all of his pre-marital assets from being allocated to Jake in the event of a divorce.  He is also concerned about the disparity of the couple’s incomes, and wishes to limit his risk to having pay from his sources of income any child or spousal support in the event of a divorce.

 

Please draft a memo for your supervising attorney to read and review which generally explains what steps John might want to take to ensure the agreement will be binding, and enforceable.  Include in your analysis what kinds of provisions John should consider including in the agreement in order to accomplish his goals.  You should address John’s ability, if any, to modify of the original terms after the wedding.

What is the In-depth description of a financial institution? 

/in /by

What is the in-depth description of a financial institution? What is the importance of Market Integration? Why is Market Integration relevant in financial institutions?

High rates of obvious plagiarism in the theses of graduate students in the MBA

/in /by

Scenario II: Due Process and ADR In 2016, a report found extremely high rates of obvious plagiarism in the theses of graduate students in the MBA program in the College of Business at Western State University. Two full-time faculty members and three adjuncts were identified for ignoring their ethical responsibilities and contributing to negligence toward issues of academic misconduct. Assistant Professor Mark Day was one of the three professors identified in the report.

The findings were published during a press conference in May 2016. The dean of the College of Business, Derrick Dawson, removed Day’s responsibilities for advising graduate students and scheduled him for undergraduate courses for the next semester. Day filed suit in a federal district court against Dawson, the university, and others for violating his due process rights by publicizing accusations about his role in plagiarism without providing him with a meaningful opportunity to clear his name in public.

What does due process require in these circumstances? Would the outcome be different if a mandatory arbitration clause was provided in Day’s contract and the university filed to dismiss the suit to require arbitration?

A Self-service chemist’s shop

/in /by

Problem 3: A self-service chemist’s shop had a checkout at the exit. Dangerous poisons and drugs, which by statute could not be sold except under the direct supervision of a qualified pharmacist, were kept separate in a special area. Customers were able to select the articles they wanted to purchase and pay the cashier for them at the exit. A registered pharmacist supervised each transaction at the exit and the pharmacist was entitled to refuse goods to any customer.

The shop was prosecuted for selling poisons without the sale being supervised by a pharmacist. The prosecution depended on where the sale took place – did the sale take place at the shelf or at the cashier? El (‘1 Key fact: the defendant was selling drugs at a self-service check out, where customers could select their items and then purchase them at the register which was supervised by a registered pharmacist Relevant issues: are the goods on the shelf an offer or simply an invitation to treat?

Key legal principles: I Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (Southern) Ltd Application: the display of goods is only an invitation to treat.

The customer bringing the goods to the register is an offer that the pharmacist can either accept or reject, meaning they are supervising the sale of drugs Tentative conclusion: the sale took place at the cashier, as it is where the exchange of money for goods occurred. The products placed on the shelf were merely an invitation to treat, and the customer has no obligation to complete the sale thus the Chemist’s shop did not breach the pharmacy and poisons act 1933

The prescribed forms to be filed by parties appearing in the High Court of Australia

/in /by

Link to the forms can be found here: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/registry/filing-documents/registry_forms-2020. Use the internet to locate a list of the prescribed forms to be filed by parties appearing in the High Court of Australia.

 

Create own version of six forms that are appropriately designed and structured.

 

Where required insert this information:

 

The Registry in your capital city.

  • The appellant/ plaintiff is Samuel James Smith of 34 Jonas Street in your capital city.
  • The respondent/ defendant is Marty Motors Pty Ltd ACN 555 432 019 of Lot 451, Peak Street in your capital city.
  • The proceeding number is M394 of 20XX.
  • The date the document is prepared and filed is 1 November 20XX.
  • The name of the legal practitioner (solicitor) filing the document is Kristy Hamas. She works at Gulber Komey Legal.

 

fill in the right information under each right form containing your version of each document.

Lists of Characters and Actors portraying the said characters

/in /by

Make a reaction paper of this movie and please follow the format of the reaction paper indicated herein below. I. Introduction II. Lists of Characters and Actors portraying the said characters. III. Summary IV. Lists down as many significant/crucial scenes in the movie that touches your emotions. V. For you what is the climax of the movie and why? VI. As a student, what are the lessons you learn of this movie? PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR REACTION PAPER DURING OUR FINAL EXAMINATION SCHEDULE! Attachments C—D bar boys full movie — Bing video

Walking home from school with Manuel and Mark

/in /by

You are walking home from school with Manuel and Mark. Mark gets angry with Manuel and pushes him down to the ground. What should you do? a. Nothing, you don’t want to get hurt too. b. Run as fast as you can to tell an adult. 0. Kick Manuel while he is on the ground. d. Stand in front of Manuel and challenge him to a fight.

Fundamental Principle underlying the Court’s jurisdiction

/in /by

DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT GEVORGIAN. Disagreement with the Court’s finding on prima facie jurisdiction Consent as a fundamental principle underlying the Court’s jurisdiction  The acts invoked by Ukraine do not fall under the scope of the Genocide Convention  The actual dispute relates to the use of force which is not covered by the Genocide Convention  Importance for the Court to maintain its settled jurisprudence  Support for adoption of the non-aggravation clause.

 

1. I could not join the majority on the first and second provisional measure indicated by the Court in this Order, purely on a substantial legal ground  I do not believe that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case. Ultimately, the jurisdiction of every international court emanates from the consent of States to subject a dispute between them to the binding settlement by a judicial body. This is a well-established principle of general international law and also firmly embodied in the Court’s Statute. Accordingly, no State can, without its consent, be compelled to submit its disputes to the Court

 

2. States can express this consent in several ways, for example by recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory under Article 36 (2) of its Statute, or by expressing a narrower form of consent via a compromissory clause, which allows the Court to adjudicate disputes relating to a specific treaty. Since neither the Russian Federation nor Ukraine have lodged a declaration under Article 36 (2) of the Statute to accept the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory, Ukraine based its claim exclusively on Article IX of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter “Genocide Convention”). Article IX of said Convention states that:

 

“Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”

 

3. In a letter to the Court, the Russian Federation indicated its opposition to the Court’s jurisdiction and noted that Article IX does not apply to the situation at hand3. In particular, the Russian Federation considers that Ukraine seeks to bring before the Court issues relating to the use of force, which are not governed by the Genocide Convention and, therefore, do not come within the jurisdiction of the Court.

 

4. As the Court has stated multiple times, in order to establish jurisdiction under Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the subject-matter of the dispute must relate to the interpretation,

application or fulfilment of the Convention5. While it must not decide in a definitive manner that it has jurisdiction over the merits of the case at this stage of the proceedings, the Court must nevertheless ascertain whether the provisions relied on by Ukraine appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded6. Accordingly, the Court must analyse whether the acts complained of by Ukraine are capable of falling within the provisions of the Genocide Convention and, as a consequence, the dispute is one which the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain.

 

5. It is evident that the dispute that Ukraine seeks to bring before the Court, in reality, relates to the use of force by the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory. However, neither is the use of force regulated by the Genocide Convention nor does the use of force in itself constitute an act of genocide. The Court has been very clear in this regard in the 1999 Legality of the Use of Force cases, where it held that

“the threat or use of force against a State cannot in itself constitute an act of genocide within the meaning of Article II of the Genocide Convention; and whereas, in the opinion of the Court, it does not appear at the present stage of the proceedings that the bombings which form the subject of the Yugoslav Application ‘indeed entail the element of intent, towards a group as such, required by the provision quoted above'”

 

6. Accordingly, the Court found that it had no prima facie jurisdiction under the Convention to adjudicate upon the bombardment of Serbia by NATO member States9. As the Court has noted in Croatia v. Serbia, it will not depart from its settled jurisprudence (jurisprudence constante) unless it finds “very particular reasons to do so”10. Yet, the situation in the precent case is similar as it concerns the use of force without a legal link to genocide. Nothing in Ukraine’s Application for provisional measures indicates that the military operations launched by the Russian Federation demonstrate the element of intent necessary for acts of genocide. Therefore, the dispute Ukraine aims to have adjudicated upon by the Court does not fall within the scope of the Convention. As a result, the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain this Application, and, consequently, to indicate provisional measures.

 

7. To circumvent this problem, Ukraine claims that the Convention embodies a right “not to be subjected to another State’s military operations on its territory based on a brazen abuse of Article I of the Genocide Convention”11. This argument is unconvincing and undermines the fundamental requirement that jurisdiction emanates from consent. Under the interpretation advanced by Ukraine, any purportedly illegal act, including the unauthorized use of force, could be shoehorned into a random treaty as long as the subject-matter regulated by this treaty had some role in the political considerations preceding the respective act.

 

8. With regard to Ukraine’s claim that the Russian Federation is falsely invoking Ukraine’s responsibility for acts of genocide, an additional problem arises. I remain unconvinced that Ukraine can invoke the compromissory clause under Article IX of the Convention only to have the Court confirm its own compliance. Such “non-violation complaints” cannot be brought before the Court in absence of a compromis or specific treaty-based authorization. Applications of this type have only been entertained by the Court when they were brought under the much broader jurisdictional basis of Article 36 (2) of the Statute12, or in combination with an actual violation complaint of the treaty in question13.

 

9.

Taking into account all the legal considerations explained above, I come to the conclusion

that the Court lacks prima facie jurisdiction to entertain this case. Accordingly, the Court should have

dismissed Ukraine’s request for provisional measures.

 

10. Despite my position on the absence of prima facie jurisdiction in this case, I have voted in favour of the third provisional measure indicated in the Court’s Order, namely that both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute or make it more difficult to resolve. The power to indicate such measure is a power inherent to the Court, and not necessarily linked to the Court’s prima facie jurisdiction over the parties’ substantive rights or obligations on the

merits of a case.