The Respondeat Superior Doctrine

Based on details Carmen provides Mark, the company is aware of her legal status as well as the statuses of many other workers in the plant. This places the company in violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens. According to this statute, it is illegal for a person or business, “after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment” (United States Code of 2006). However, as stated by the Department of Homeland Security, employers

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

Drunk Driving Wrecks: Making sure that the drunk driver is held responsible for his actions according to the laws of Texas.

From this incident was any employee disciplined for not following safety procedures. This would establish if the company believes the employees were negligent in their duty.

Federalist No.51, “the power surrendered by the people” would be “divided between two distinct governments” creating a balance of power that would enable the “different governments to control each other.” -James Madison

Facts: A fire was evolved on September 23, 1981 in a log cabin due to a hot plate. The hot plate was left on with an accelerant and kerosene near by. The owner of the cabin, Henry Xavier Kennedy was convicted of Arson as he obtained an insurance policy for $40K on the cabin five days prior to this fire and police found evidence that the construction business owned by Mr. Kennedy was losing money, and Mr. Kennedy's alibi was insufficient to eliminate him as a suspect.

John Cain met employee Oliver Dean Emigh (“Emigh”) and owner John Roberts at the Bargain Barn in March of 1998. John Cain (“Cain”) was a self-employed computer consultant. John Roberts (“Roberts”) explained to Cain that he needed documents typed for Republic of Texas (“ROT”) legal matters due to being a member of the ROT. Cain met with Johnie Wise and Roberts the next day at the Bargain Barn to discuss computer related topics. Cain became worried about Roberts, ROT affiliation when he went to work for Roberts on a daily basis. Cain told the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about Roberts’ request for secretarial assistance on ROT matters

On August 1, 2016, senate bill 11 (S.B. 11) was put into effect, which allows for the carrying of concealed handguns on Texas public institution campuses by license to carry a handgun (LTC) holders (Campus Carry UTSA). There has been lots of controversy over this new law, especially since there were 23 shootings on college campuses in 2015 alone. In this essay, I plan to explain the stipulations of this new law and why it is controversial.

With the coming retirement of Representative AL Ott, we need to make sure we find the right person to fill his shoes. To me there is one candidate that really stands out. After meeting with him and doing my research, it is apparent that Atty Ron Tusler is the perfect candidate for the position. He is a proven leader and has done a lot for the Republican Party. He is a job creator and has a passion for helping people. He is doing this for all the right reasons and I believe he would be a fantastic Assemblyman. Join me in supporting Ron Tusler for Wisconsin's 3rd Assembly

Not every DWI (driving while intoxicated) case ends the same, some have different verdicts in the courtroom. The Ethan Couch case is a great example of why punishing drunk drivers should be more enforced and not so lenient. The teen from Texas was driving drunk with two other passengers in his pickup truck on June of 2013, when he hit and killed four people. Ethan Couch was tried as a juvenile and charged with four counts of Intoxication Manslaughter, but was only sentenced to ten years of probation. His lawyers argued that it was due to “affluenza”, which means that he came from a wealthy family and it prevented him from understanding what was right from wrong, so he was not held accountable for his actions. The judge who took on this case

In Chapter 5 of The Morality of War, Brian Orend discusses the particular case of supreme emergencies, hereby defined as a state of war during which an aggressor state comes dangerously close to overpowering the victim state militarly, probably followed by extreme brutalization of the victim state's population and various violations of human rights, such as rape, slavery, mass murder and so on. The concept of supreme emergency has caused controversy in the discourse about the morality of war, regarding both what constitutes a supreme emergency and how supreme emergencies are to be addressed within the context of just war theory. In this essay, I will review Orend's exposition on the matter and follow with an introduction of elements that

This case study analyzes the experiences of Courtland Kelley at General Motors (GM). Courtland Kelley a third generation GM worker put his job on the line by pushing the GM managers and executives to fully respond to the safety issues found while working as a safety inspector at the company. Kelley along with his supervisor Bill McAleer first discovered the issues while auditing GM cars at rail yards across the country, a spot check of vehicles before the cars were cleared to be delivered to the dealers. McAleer was taken off the audit as a result, who subsequently sued the company seeking whistle-blower protection. The case was eventually dismissed by a judge in favor of GM. The judgement only increased Kelley’s

Philosophers base the idea of objective morality on the assumption that some moral ideals are universal and should be the moral responsibility of everyone. Subjective moralists counter this argument by explaining that each moral decision is independent because each moral situation is unique to its own conditions. Ultimately, these two views shape the nature of moral philosophy and theology, each describing the different natures of morality (Hammond). These two theories have a large impact on the thinking process of humans on an everyday basis. This process then leads up to a person valuing different things more than others. The separation of objective and subjective theories all boil down to whether or not a theory is universal or not. A subjective theory has an absence of universal truths, and an objective theory has universal truths. Two vary popular theories that will take part in my research were the Divine Command Theory, and Natural law theory. Two theories that may seem similar, but in fact are very different.

The first Act of Supremacy was introduced by Henry VIII in 1534 during his rule of England. Later, when Elizabeth I came to the throne, the second Act of Supremacy was introduced to bring back the reforms that Mary had abolished. Both of these acts have many similarities but also some fundamental differences that helped indicate the type of ruler each monarch would be. Before discussing the differences it is important to first understand how the Act of Supremacy came about.

In this essay I will be explaining how the doctrine of the separation of powers has been compromised to a less extent in the nation like Australia. The first section will constitute in exploring the history and the significance of the separation of the power doctrine. In the second section I will discuss about the compromise of the doctrine, especially between the administrator and the legislature with some good cases held in high court. Besides, some clarification will be provided to explain how the philosophical system of separation of power is being compromised. This estimate will be supported by the depth psychology of several examples and articles where the doctrine has been compromised concluding that the total separation of the power is merely a myth but as well in spite of that the doctrine protects the individual rights.