Why do you need to know who your U.S. Senators are?

the answers is true true true true true

Answer:

a) true.......but to an extent u should leave sufficient enough space...the legal spacing would have to be used

Answer:

The Court's jurisdiction is broad, covering almost all civil matters arising under Australian federal law and some summary and indictable criminal matters. Central to the Court's civil jurisdiction is s 39B(1A)c of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).This jurisdiction includes cases created by a federal statute, and extends to matters in which a federal issue is properly raised as part of a claim or of a defence and to matters where the subject matter in dispute owes its existence to a federal statute.

The Court has jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act to hear applications for judicial review of decisions by officers of the Commonwealth. Many cases also arise under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) which provides for judicial review of most administrative decisions made under Commonwealth enactments on grounds relating to the legality, rather than the merits, of the decision. The Court also hears appeals on questions of law from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This jurisdiction falls under the Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights National Practice Area (NPA) which also includes complaints about unlawful discrimination no longer being dealt with by the Australian Human Rights Commission and matters concerning the Australian Constitution.

The Court hears taxation matters on appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It also exercises a first instance jurisdiction to hear objections to decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation.

The Court shares first instance jurisdiction with the Supreme Courts of the states and territories in the complex area of intellectual property (copyright, patents, trademarks, designs and circuit layouts). All appeals in these cases, including appeals from the Supreme Courts, are to a full Federal Court.

Jurisdiction

residence;

cause of action;

the place where the dispute arose;

the quantum and nature of the claim;

consent;

location of the property; and.

other factors.

please give me brainliest.

Answer:

True, the Chief Justice delivered the verdict of a  5-4 majority, stating that the  defendant's interrogation violated his Fifth Amendment Right..

Explanation:

Chief Justice Earl Owen wrote about Miranda’s case for the supreme court. The statement is True.

The Supreme Court is the highest judiciary body in the country which evaluates whether the laws are practiced properly or not. It helps to check the activities that are unconstitutional in the country and take strict actions against them.

The United States Supreme Court held in the landmark decision of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that police must tell individuals of their constitutional rights prior to questioning them while they are in custody.

Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody and brought in for interrogation in relation to a  kidnapping case in this case. Miranda was not made aware of his access to an attorney or his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Learn more about the supreme court, here:

https://brainly.com/question/10739091

#SPJ2

have a nice day haha

Answer:

b. policies regarding vehicular pursuits

Explanation:

Police discretion limitations related to vehicular pursuits began during the 1990's and is not a recent development.

Answer:

I'm pretty sure its true

Explanation:

Answer:

False

Explanation: