Business Law Assignment Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Business Law Assignment - Course course ExampleThe paper tells that in the spirit of the United States, Article 1, Section 2 refers to the qualifications that must be met to dish up as a piece of the House of Representatives. It states that No soulfulness shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the succession of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution delineates the fates to become a Senator, by stating that No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine-spot Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. The qualifications to serve as President of the United States argon found in Article 2, Section one. The document states that no Person except a natural born C itizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the while of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be suitable to the Office of President n each shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. The Age requirement for the House of Representatives is five years less than the requirements for senate and x years less than for president. The age and citizenship requirements for Senate exceed those of the House by five and three years respectively. They are less than those for President by five years for both categories. The qualifications to serve as President are the highest exceeding the age requirement for the House by ten years and the Senate by five years, and the citizenship requirement for the House by seven years and for Senate by five years. All three of the offices require that the Person be a natural born Citizen of the United States. Question 2 Stanglin ar gues that the ordinance violates the equal protection, because on that point is no rational base of operations to suppose that children are at a greater danger cosmos near a class E dance hall than a skating rink. I disaccord with this statement. The Equal Protection clause states that no state shall ... deny to any person within its legal power the equal protection of the laws (US Const., amend. XIV). This statement taken on its own can be taken either extremely strictly or be loosely interpreted, but there is a rather vast history of supreme court cases that has led up to the current guidelines on interpreting this clause. Some of the more or less famous of these cases had to do with equality between races, womens suffrage and the rights of immigrants. Currently the equal protection clause is interpreting as protecting state governments from discriminating against these types of rights-- natural or inalienable rights. For cases like Stanglins, where no fundamental rights ar e involved, the state need only to show there is some type of rational basis for whatever distinction they make through the law. Since the state passed the ordinance in the interest of protecting the youthfulness from drugs and dangerous sex, it was not passed arbitrarily and thus not irrational. Personally, it seems to me that Stanglin filed this suit simply out of personal interest, because he would lose money for his business. I dont think the equal protection should ever work in this way. The clause is not to be used for protecting the profit seeking interests of business from regulations compel by local governments. It is to protect people from arbitrary and unjust discrimination of the law. Question 3 The patriarchal element in this case, is the fact that Hernandez relied upon a promise that a business made to him, which they failed to keep causation him to suffer monetary loss. Thus I am certain Hernandez should win this case given that the stack meet the criteria for pr omissory estoppel. The text defines a promise in a promissory estopp