Placeholder

GBA 231 Complete Week DQ Pack Latest-Saint Leo

$50.00

Quantity:

Product Description

GBA 231 Complete Week DQ Pack Latest-Saint Leo

GBA 231 Complete Week DQ Pack Latest-Saint Leo

GBA231

GBA 231 Module 1 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo

In the United States, the Supreme Court has the final say concerning any law or dispute in the land. The decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court may not be appealed and become the law of the land the instant the opinions are made public by publication of the document. No other branch of the government has the absolute final say on any issue, legal or otherwise.

Further, members of the Supreme Court are not elected by the public but rather are appointed for life by the President and Senate and cannot be removed by less than a 2/3 vote of the United States Congress.

For your discussion in this module, we will use the basic debate form. The proposition set forth is this: “The United States Supreme Court powers are appropriate and essential. No other legal form or entity could exist superior to our system.”

GBA 231 Module 2 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo

Unlike many English language constitutions, the United States Constitution specifically provides for a mechanism for the government to involuntarily take private real property from its citizens. The only requirement that the government must show is that the taking is for a “public” purpose.

There is no requirement that the taking be “necessary” or even “reasonable.” Any stated government purpose suffices. If the public purpose is demonstrated, then the government, state or federal, may take the property and provide the previous owner with “fair value” or compensation for the taking.

For your discussion in this module, we will use the basic debate form. The proposition set forth is this: “The United States Supreme Court taking powers for real property are just and necessary. No modifications need exist to the takings clause at this time.”

GBA 231 Module 3 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo

Until 1677 and the creation of the Statute of Frauds in England, all contracts could be either written or oral and yet be equally binding on the parties. After 1677, the law required certain types of contracts (such as contracts to buy or sell land) to be both made in writing and executed with the physical signatures of all of the parties involved.

At any time thereafter, either party could challenge authenticity of the physical signature of his/her own handwriting or the handwriting of the other party.

Recently, with the increase of eCommerce, electronic signature (non-physical) has become as equally binding as the physical signature with severe limitation allowed in challenging the authenticity.

Has this developed out of necessity, or have we simply moved too far with the law accommodating the digital age?

GBA 231 Module 4 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo

Read the ETHICS section of your text on page 235. This section describes a case in which a paralegal who had been orally promised a bonus of $1,065,000 was deprived of the bonus in a dispute because no written agreement existed as to the bonus as would have been required by the Statute of Frauds.

That an agreement was had was beyond dispute, because there existed a (secret) recording detailing the promise of the bonus between the paralegal and his/her employer.

As your text explains, the Statute of Frauds requires certain types of contracts (such as contracts to buy or sale land) to be both made in writing and executed with the physical signatures of all of the parties involved.

This requirement was clearly not met. Further, the undisclosed recording of the agreement constitutes a crime. Was a fair result handed down in this matter? What, if anything, would you do to modify the Court’s decision?

GBA 231 Module 5 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created to protect against discrimination what Congress considered to be the five most important classes of persons needing protection.

These classes came to be known as the “Big Five” and included Race, Color, Sex, Religion, and National Origin.

Do you think that these five classes are the most important classes, or would you have chosen other classes such as Age, Sexual Orientation, etc.? Explain and defend whether you are in agreement or not.

GBA 231 Module 6 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo

The English Common Law allows for three primary forms of business entities: The sole proprietorship, the general partnership, and the corporation (although there are many variations of each type).

Each type of business has a very distinct set of advantages and disadvantages. If you were a business owner today, which form of business would you prefer to own and why?

As an employee, which type of business would you prefer to work for and why? Please explain in detail with your specific reasons.

GBA 231 Module 7 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo

The Department of Homeland Security, created in 2002, created the second largest government agency in the country (second only to the Department of Defense).

The creation of this agency was highly controversial in the United States Congress for two primary reasons.

First, the cost of administration of the new agency immediately created a new, huge financial obligation of the government that did not exist previously and, secondly, the new agency became an “umbrella” agency that managed twenty-two previously autonomous agencies already assigned the basic mission directives of security within the United States. Are these alleged criticisms valid, or did a new need exist?

GBA 231 Module 8 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo

The living will is a relatively new doctrine and instrument in the English Common Law. The living will is a creation of necessity that came about due to the huge and unforeseeable medical advances that occurred in the 20th century due primarily to technological breakthroughs. Prior to this time, the common law allowed an individual to make her medical decisions only during such time as she was physically competent to do so. If and when such competency ended, the law imposed a strict protocol of persons to whom the duty of decision-making would fall.

No allowances were made for what we now call advance directives. Is this an improvement of the law or do living wills and advance directives create more problem than they solve?

Please use a concrete example to support your argument.