Robert Jordan, along with 500 others, took a written test for consideration to be a police officer in one of several cities and towns in southeastern Connecticut on March 16, 1996 (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). The test was administered by “LEC” which is the Law Enforcement Council of Southeastern Connecticut, Inc. (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). For the participating police departments, this test was used as an initial screener for likely candidates (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). This written test utilized the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (WPT), which claim to gage cognitive aptitude (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). This test actually came with a handbook that showcased recommended scores for particular jobs such a police officer and warned that higher scores needed for a job could prevent that opportunity (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999).
102), and similarly, according to the law of territoriality – “all people, regardless of whether they were citizens or foreigners, are equally subject to the law of the country where they live” (p.
Legal studies assessment 1. The name of the case is Webb v Edwards [2018] NSWDC 67 - The parties involved in this case are: - Tony Webb (Plaintiff) - Lyndon John Edwards (Defendant)
The case of Jordan v. City of New London and Harrigan (1999) centers around Jordan bringing a civil rights action against the city and Harrington alleging that they denied him equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 4, Section 20, of the Connecticut Constitution (Jordan v. City of New London, 2000). The facts as presented to the court are that Jordan and 500 other police applicants voluntarily took the applicant screening examination for being a police officer in the state Connecticut in early 1996. The testing material included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (WPT), which purports to measure cognitive ability. An accompanying manual listed recommended scores for various professions and
For this institution Pittonia will draw inspiration from the Canada. Canada’s court system is comprised of four tiers; the provincial and territorial lower courts, the provincial and territorial superior courts, the appellate courts, both regional and federal, and the Canadian Supreme Court (“Canada’s Court System”). By using a method such as this Pittonia will ensure that all areas needing judicial guidance are overseen. Borrowing more from the Canadian system, and not another similar one, such as the American system, Pittonia’s courts are all unified, and the Supreme Court retains the final authority, unlike in the American system, where states can interpret state laws as they see fit. With such a diverse population, it is necessary in some areas to have strict uniformity, so that there can be no dissent with interpretations between regions.
According to article 2, “Each state retains its sovereignty [ the ability to make one’s own laws and govern oneself], freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right”(740), this article gives the state’s power to create any law of their own and ignore any other laws the central government
Court Systems: Comparing Canada, the United States, and Mexico This paper is a discussion of the court systems of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The aim of the paper is to point highlight similarities and differences in each judicial system. It will allow the reader an insight to the how each country operates its judicial branch.
Unit 1-1: Why We Need Laws (Konstantin Degtyarev) Law are rules for everyone to follow, laws are intended to establish freedoms, responsibilities, democratic principles and respect towards others and the public equipment. A public law is between an individual or a group of individuals and the society; whereas private law is between an individual/s and other individual/s. A public law helps establish rules between people and their community, whilst private law establishes rules between people, hence the name private.
it might be said: I Introduction Under section 75(v) of the Australian Constitution, the High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters ‘in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.’ Nonetheless, unlike in other overseas jurisdictions, there is currently no basis in the Australian Constitution for the award of damages for constitutional wrongs. There are varying schools of thought on whether damages should be awarded under such circumstances and this essay will seek to explore why the Australian Constitution should be amended to allow for damages to be awarded for constitutional wrongs. The aforementioned argument will be expounded by reference to the works of various
The three types of theories of the lawmaking process are rationalistic model, functionalist view, and conflict perspective. Rationalistic model is laws that are created as rational means of protecting the members of society from social harm(s). Functionalist view which was theorized by Emile Durkheim’s, is that laws are an institutionalized custom and need for a society to function as a whole. The final theory is conflict perspective which means laws are put in place for social control. Each one of these three theories both have their own benefits, as well as their flaws in helping to creating law(s).
FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED AND CAMILLO SITTE: NOT AS DIFFERENT AS THEY FIRST APPEAR Harkening from different sides of the Atlantic, two influential urban planners worked to transform the blossoming urban environment of the nineteenth century, albeit with very different approaches. This essay will be looking at the ideals and some of the work of Frederick Law Olmsted and Camillo Sitte. Born within just over twenty years of one and other, Olmsted in Hartford, Connecticut, and Sitte in Vienna, both men had careers encompassing fields well beyond urban planning. Not a planner by training, Olmsted delved into the world of planning when he and Calvert Vaux won the design competition for New York’s Central Park in 1858.
Natural Resources minister is under fire from Liberal minister for harmful comments about the approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. He apologized for the comments he made about pipeline protests that some people mis-interpret his speech as a threat of their communities. Carr made comments about the possible use of defence forces during future protests to put their safety over pipeline projects approved by Ottawa. The controversy was started when Carr told the crowd "If people choose for their own reasons not to be peaceful, then the government of Canada, through its defence forces, through its police forces, will ensure that people will be kept safe"(Lazzarino). Some First Nations made a promised to protest over the Liberal government controversial
To govern oneself as one wished is an attribute of independence. A sovereign state may not be disturbed by another state unless it has given the right to intervene. When a state attaches legal consequences to conduct in another state, it exercises control over that conduct, and when such control affects essential interests in the foreign state, it may constitute an interference with the sovereign rights of that foreign
An issue in theoretical basis on what should prevail or which is supreme between International Law or Municipal Law (national law) is usually presented as a competition between monism and dualist. But in modern approach there is now the theory of coordination or is also called Harmonization theory that rejects the presumption of the other two theoretical concept, monism and dualism. The monist view asserts the international law’s supremacy over the municipal law even in matters within the internal or domestic jurisdiction of a state. While it is true that the international law defines the legal existence of states as well of the validity of its national legal order, the dualist asserts the international law is an existing system that is completely separated from municipal or national law. That dictates the
International laws are, by definition “A body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another” (www.oxforddictionaries.com). International law is a very significant topic because it affects everyone globally. In this research report, I would like to explore the advantages and disadvantages of international laws and consider if they should be enforced in all countries. The modern system we use today was developed in the 17th century in Europe and is still used worldwide (Stratton, 2009). After the Second World War, international unity became very popular (Neff).
