Essay on Business Law Ch 5 Hw

1772 WordsAug 24, 20138 Pages
1. Assume that the state of Ohio passed a hazardous waste statute, seeking to protect the general public and workers. The state statute did not violate the Commerce Clause because it imposed no restriction on interstate commerce. Both the state statute and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) established job safety standards and specified worker training and employer licensing, but the requirements differed. Which statute(s) Ohio corporations had to obey? Pick the best ANALYSISwer. a. Ohio corporations must obey all state statutes | | b. Ohio corporations must obey OSHA’s statute and Ohio’s hazardous waste statute | | **c. If there is a conflict between a state statute and a federal statute, the federal statute…show more content…
The Court created a three-part test to determine if a creative work is obscene. Which one is NOT one of the basic guidelines? a. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. | | b. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. | | **c. Whether the work includes language which is prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission. | | d. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. | | | 10. The "dormant" aspect of the Commerce Clause holds that: a. a state statute is always unconstitutional when it burdens free speech in commerce. | | **b. a state statute that discriminates against interstate commerce is invariably unconstitutional. | | c. a federal law can always be preempted by a state statute. | | d. only courts can decide when a state statute is unconstitutional. | | | 11. Which clause states that the Constitution, and federal statutes and treaties, shall be the supreme law of the land. a. Commerce Clause | | **b. Supremacy Clause | | c. Takings Clause | | d. Equal Protection Clause | | | 12. In Miller v. California (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court: a. held that the First Amendment is an absolute protection on all speech. | | b. held

More about Essay on Business Law Ch 5 Hw

Open Document