identify whether the statement is an example of an individual student-referenced, a norm-referenced, or a standards-based comparison. select the one correct answer for each item.

An agreement to amend or extend a contract is typically used when the parties to the original contract want to make changes to the terms and conditions of the agreement. This can occur for a variety of reasons, such as changes in market conditions, unexpected circumstances, or simply a desire to modify the terms of the original contract.

An agreement to amend or extend a contract should be used when the changes to the contract are significant enough to require formal documentation. This might include changes to the scope of work, payment terms, delivery dates, or any other important aspect of the original agreement.
In general, an agreement to amend or extend a contract should be used whenever the parties want to make changes to the original agreement that are not covered by the existing terms and conditions. By documenting these changes in a formal agreement, both parties can ensure that their expectations are clear and that the changes are legally binding.
In conclusion, if you need to modify the terms of an existing contract, an agreement to amend or extend the contract is the appropriate way to do so. This type of agreement can be used to document any changes that are agreed upon by both parties and can provide additional clarity and protection for everyone involved.

To know more about the contract visit:

https://brainly.com/question/32254040

#SPJ11

The authority of a court to be the first to hear a particular kind of case is known as "jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. In general, a court has jurisdiction to hear a case if it has the power to do so under the laws of the state or federal system in which it operates.

There are several types of jurisdiction, including subject matter jurisdiction, which refers to the court's authority to hear a case involving a particular type of legal claim or issue, and personal jurisdiction, which refers to the court's authority to hear a case involving a particular person or entity.

Learn more about legal authority

https://brainly.com/question/960076

#SPJ4

True. In order for a class action lawsuit to be certified, there must be commonality among the plaintiffs' claims.

Commonality refers to the presence of shared legal or factual issues that are central to the claims of the class members. It is one of the key requirements for a class action certification.

The commonality requirement serves several purposes. Firstly, it ensures that the class members have similar legal claims or rights that can be addressed collectively. This promotes judicial efficiency by allowing a single lawsuit to resolve multiple similar claims, rather than requiring individual lawsuits for each plaintiff.

Secondly, commonality helps to establish the cohesiveness of the class and the ability to represent the interests of all class members. It ensures that the lawsuit is not merely a collection of unrelated claims, but rather a collective action addressing common issues.

Learn more about plaintiffs' claims.

https://brainly.com/question/3522323

#SPJ4

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case has had a significant impact on elections in the United States. The ruling, which centered around the issue of campaign finance, resulted in the removal of certain restrictions on political spending by corporations, unions, and other organizations.

This decision opened the floodgates for unlimited independent political spending by these entities. As a result, we have witnessed a surge in the influence of money in politics. Super PACs (Political Action Committees) and other independent expenditure groups have emerged as powerful players, able to spend vast amounts of money on behalf of political candidates or causes. This has led to an increased reliance on large donors and wealthy individuals who can contribute significant sums, potentially distorting the democratic process and favoring those with financial resources.

The ruling has sparked intense debate about the influence of money in politics, the potential for corruption, and the fairness of elections. Critics argue that it has further entrenched the power of special interests and wealthy individuals, undermining the principle of "one person, one vote." Proponents, on the other hand, contend that the ruling upholds free speech rights and promotes political participation by allowing individuals and organizations to express their views more freely.

In summary, the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case has significantly impacted elections by allowing corporations, unions, and other organizations to engage in unlimited independent political spending. This has led to an increase in the influence of money in politics, giving rise to powerful independent expenditure groups and raising concerns about fairness and the role of wealthy individuals in shaping electoral outcomes. The ruling continues to be a subject of debate and scrutiny in discussions surrounding campaign finance and democratic processes.

Learn more about elections here : brainly.com/question/30470097

#SPJ11

In order for an employee to establish a claim for sexual harassment, the requirement of the employer having actual knowledge of the harassment is not necessary. The absence of employer knowledge does not necessarily absolve the employer from liability.

Under most laws and regulations, an employee typically needs to demonstrate the following elements to establish a claim for sexual harassment:

Unwelcome behavior: The employee must show that they experienced unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace.

Hostile work environment or quid pro quo: The behavior must either create a hostile work environment, meaning the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive or intimidating work environment, or involve quid pro quo harassment, where employment decisions or benefits are conditioned upon submitting to or rejecting unwelcome sexual advances.

Reasonable person standard: The employee must establish that a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would find the conduct objectionable.

While it is generally advisable for an employee to report incidents of sexual harassment to their employer or a designated authority within the organization, the employer's actual knowledge is not always a requirement for the employee to establish a claim. The law recognizes that some circumstances may prevent or discourage an employee from reporting harassment, such as fear of retaliation or a hostile work environment.

It's important to note that the specific legal requirements and standards for establishing a claim of sexual harassment may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the applicable laws. Consulting with an employment attorney or referring to the relevant laws in your jurisdiction would provide you with more precise and up-to-date information.

To know more about , sexual harassment, click here:https://brainly.in/question/17803734

Forming new unions can be a challenging and rewarding experience. When someone decides to remarry or enter into a new cohabiting union, they are making a big commitment.

This commitment involves more than just the two people involved, as it affects their families and loved ones as well. It also involves a number of legal and financial considerations.

When two people enter into a new union, they must determine how they will split the assets, manage their finances, and structure their relationship. Additionally, they may need to consider how to handle children from previous relationships and how to build trust in their new union.

Remarriage or entering into a new cohabiting union can be a positive experience for both parties, but it is important to take the time to consider the legal and financial implications. It is also important to enter into the union with an open mind and an understanding of each other’s needs. When done correctly, a new union can bring both parties a great deal of joy and satisfaction.

To know more about Remarriage , click here:

https://brainly.com/question/30626057

#SPJ4

An itemized deduction of $500 with a 36 percent tax rate would reduce a person's taxes by $180.

To calculate this, you would first multiply the deduction amount ($500) by the tax rate (36% or 0.36), which gives you $180. This means that the person would pay $180 less in taxes as a result of claiming this deduction.
It's worth noting that itemized deductions are deductions that you can take on your tax return for certain expenses you incurred throughout the year, such as charitable donations, mortgage interest, and medical expenses. These deductions can help lower your taxable income, which in turn can reduce the amount of taxes you owe. However, it's important to keep in mind that not all expenses are deductible, and there are often limits and restrictions on how much you can deduct.

To know more about tax visit:

https://brainly.com/question/12611692

#SPJ11

In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court Justices decided that the city of New London's use of eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes was constitutional under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court Justices decided that the city of New London's use of eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes was constitutional under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The case involved homeowners in a working-class neighborhood who were fighting against the city's plans to demolish their homes to make way for a large development project that included a research facility and a hotel. The homeowners argued that the use of eminent domain for economic development was not a valid public use and violated the Constitution's requirement that takings must be for "public use" and must provide "just compensation" to the property owners. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the city, stating that the public benefits of the economic development project outweighed the private property rights of the homeowners. The decision sparked controversy and led to calls for reform of eminent domain laws.

To know more about Supreme Court Justice visit: https://brainly.com/question/6295375

#SPJ11

In the Jackie Lawer case, her killer, Christopher Spencer, claimed that he removed her pants because he thought it would make it harder for her to identify him.

Spencer was a convicted s-e-x offender and had a history of violence towards women. He had been released from prison just a few months before he mur-der-ed Jackie Lawer.
During his trial, Spencer claimed that he did not intend to kill Lawer and that he only attacked her after she resisted his s-e-x-ual advances. He said that he panicked after he realized that he had kil-led her and removed her pants in an attempt to cover up the crime.
However, the prosecution argued that Spencer had planned the mur-der and that he removed Lawer's pants to humiliate her. They presented evidence that Spencer had a fetish for women's clothing and that he had previously broken into a woman's apartment and stolen her under-wear.
Ultimately, Spencer was found guilty of first-degree mur-der and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The case remains a tragic reminder of the dangers posed by convicted s-e-x offenders and the importance of taking their history of violence seriously.

To know more about violence visit:
https://brainly.com/question/28424941
#SPJ11

Driving in the right lane on a two-lane, multilane highway allows for smoother traffic flow, safer driving, and adherence to lane regulations.

Driving in the right lane on a two-lane, multilane highway is important for several reasons.

First and foremost, it helps maintain the smooth flow of traffic. The right lane is generally designated as the travel lane, while the left lane is often used for passing or higher-speed traffic.

By driving in the right lane, you allow faster-moving vehicles to pass you safely, reducing the likelihood of congestion and preventing potential accidents.

Secondly, driving in the right lane promotes safety. It allows for better visibility and reaction time, as you have fewer vehicles passing you on one side.

Additionally, it reduces the risk of collisions caused by sudden lane changes or merging vehicles.

Staying in the right lane also ensures that emergency vehicles can easily access the left lane when needed.

Moreover, driving in the right lane is often a legal requirement, especially when there are signs or road markings indicating lane usage.

It helps maintain order and adherence to traffic regulations.

Overall, driving in the right lane on a two-lane, multilane highway promotes traffic flow, safety, and compliance with the law.

It contributes to a smoother driving experience for all motorists on the road.

For more such questions on lane regulations

https://brainly.com/question/30208943

#SPJ11

An agreement to encourage a lawsuit in which one or more parties have no legitimate interest is commonly known as champerty. Champerty refers to a situation where a person or entity financially supports or encourages a lawsuit in exchange for a share of the proceeds if the lawsuit is successful.

This practice is generally considered unethical and is prohibited in many jurisdictions. Champerty involves an outsider, often referred to as a "champertor," who has no legitimate interest or connection to the lawsuit but provides financial assistance to the litigant in exchange for a portion of the winnings. The champertor's motive is typically profit-driven, seeking to gain a share of the awarded damages or settlement. This type of agreement undermines the principle of genuine and legitimate participation in the legal process. It can lead to frivolous or unnecessary lawsuits and may create conflicts of interest, compromising the integrity of the legal system.

Overall, champerty agreements involve promoting lawsuits where the parties involved lack legitimate interest and instead have a financial stake in the outcome. Due to ethical concerns and the potential for abuse, champerty is generally disallowed, and laws and regulations are in place to deter such agreements and maintain the integrity of the legal system.

Learn more about lawsuits here : https://brainly.com/question/30392587

#SPJ11

A Republican who opposes government regulation of both social and economic issues best fits in with the ideology of libertarianism.

Libertarianism advocates for minimal government intervention in both personal and economic matters, emphasizing individual freedom, limited government power, and the protection of individual rights. Libertarians generally believe that individuals should have the autonomy to make their own choices regarding social and economic matters, and that government interference in these areas can hinder personal liberties and economic prosperity.

They prioritize individual rights, free markets, and voluntary interactions, and seek to limit government involvement to the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Learn more about economic matters

https://brainly.com/question/14728083

#SPJ4

Full Question: a republican who opposes government regulation of both social and economic issues best fits in with _______

The formation of a corporation or an LLC is primarily governed by state law in the United States.

The formation of a corporation or an LLC is primarily governed by state law in the United States. Each state has its own statutes and regulations that outline the requirements and procedures for establishing and registering these business entities.

These laws cover various aspects including the filing of articles of incorporation or organization, the appointment of directors or managers, the issuance of stock or membership interests, and other legal The federal laws may also apply in areas such as securities regulations and taxation.

Read more about corporation

brainly.com/question/1918077

#SPJ1

Because a corporation is not a human being, it cannot be convicted of a crime. False.

While a corporation is not a human being, it can still be convicted of a crime in many jurisdictions, including the United States. Corporations are considered legal entities separate from their owners or shareholders, and they can be held responsible for their actions under criminal law.

When a corporation engages in unlawful behavior or illegal activities, it can be subject to investigation, prosecution, and potentially convicted of a crime. The criminal liability of a corporation can result in penalties, fines, and other legal consequences. Therefore, the notion that a corporation cannot be convicted of a crime is false.

Learn more about  United States

https://brainly.com/question/8147900

#SPJ4

The Naturalization Act of 1790 Act limited naturalization to individuals who were white and excluded other racial and ethnic groups.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first legislation enacted by the United States Congress that established rules for the naturalization of individuals as American citizens. According to this act, only "free white persons" of good moral character were eligible to become naturalized citizens. This meant that the Act limited naturalization to individuals who were white and excluded other racial and ethnic groups.

Specifically, the Naturalization Act of 1790 stated:

"Any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen."

This requirement restricted naturalization to white immigrants, excluding individuals of African, Asian, Indigenous, or other non-European descent. It reflected the prevalent racial attitudes and discriminatory practices of the time.

It's important to note that subsequent laws and amendments to the Naturalization Act expanded the eligibility criteria for citizenship over time, gradually removing racial and ethnic restrictions. The Naturalization Act of 1795, for example, continued to limit naturalization to "free white persons," but increased the residency requirement from two to five years. Subsequent acts and amendments further extended citizenship rights to different racial and ethnic groups.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 and its limitations based on race and ethnicity were eventually superseded by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, which granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

It's important to recognize that the Naturalization Act of 1790's racial restrictions were a product of their time and do not reflect the inclusive citizenship laws in effect today. The laws and requirements for becoming an American citizen have evolved significantly over the years to embrace principles of equality and non-discrimination.

To know more about naturalization act of 1790, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/30395587

#SPJ11

The notion that if a plaintiff is even slightly negligent, he or she recovers nothing is known as Contributory negligence.

This legal doctrine is based on the idea that a person who is even slightly at fault for an injury or damages should not be able to recover any damages from the other party. Under this legal theory, if the plaintiff is found to be even slightly negligent, he or she will not be able to recover any damages from the other party, even if the other party is primarily responsible for the damages.

This doctrine is still in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States, although some states have adopted comparative negligence laws which allow a plaintiff to recover some damages even if they were partially at fault.

To know more about Contributory negligence, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/29829781

#SPJ4

If a person does not break any laws, but does not follow the accepted principles of professional conduct, that person would be considered unprofessional or unethical. While the laws provide a baseline for behavior, professional conduct goes beyond legal compliance and sets higher standards for behavior in a given profession.

Failing to adhere to these standards can result in consequences such as loss of reputation, loss of business, or disciplinary action by professional organizations.

Five fundamental principles of professional ethics for all professional accountants:Integrity,Objectivity,Professional Competence and Due Care,Confidentiality and Professional Behaviour.

learn more about principles of professional here:

brainly.com/question/31147281

#SPJ11

A justification model that helps us decide whether or not to lie was proposed by James B. Stiff in his 1986 article titled "A Justification Model of Honesty and Deception."

The model suggests that individuals will consider three factors when deciding whether to lie or tell the truth: perceived benefits of the lie, perceived costs of the truth, and the moral implications of both options.
Stiff argues that the decision to lie is often influenced by the perceived benefits of the lie, such as avoiding punishment or gaining personal advantage. However, individuals will also consider the perceived costs of telling the truth, such as potential harm or negative consequences. Finally, individuals will weigh the moral implications of both options, considering whether the lie is justifiable or not.
Overall, Stiff's model provides a framework for individuals to evaluate the ethical implications of their actions and make informed decisions about whether or not to lie. It emphasizes the importance of considering the potential consequences of both lying and telling the truth, and suggests that moral justifications for lying are not always acceptable.
This model provides a useful tool for individuals to evaluate their own behavior and make ethical decisions, as it encourages critical thinking and careful consideration of the potential impact of one's actions. By using Stiff's model to evaluate their decisions, individuals can strive to maintain honesty and integrity in their interactions with others.
In conclusion, Stiff's justification model provides a valuable framework for individuals to evaluate whether or not to lie, taking into account the potential benefits and costs of both lying and telling the truth, as well as the moral implications of their actions. This model is an important tool for promoting ethical decision-making and maintaining integrity in interpersonal interactions.

To know more about justification visit:

https://brainly.com/question/23939271

#SPJ11

If North Dakota sues south Dakota, the case will be heard by the court system in the state of North Dakota.

Generally, a state can bring a lawsuit against another state in federal court, but this is done rarely. In most cases, the two states would enter into a dispute resolution process through their respective attorney generals. If this process is unsuccessful, the dispute could then proceed to the federal court system.

Alternatively, the case could be heard in a special court created to adjudicate interstate disputes, or it could be heard in the highest court of either state. Ultimately, the court in which the case would be heard would depend on the specifics of the case and the laws of the two states involved.

To know more about special court , click here:

https://brainly.com/question/30282228

#SPJ4

in "Women and Crime," Rita Simon proposes new insights into the relationship between women and crime.

(2nd PART) In her work, Rita Simon suggests that traditional theories of crime, which have primarily focused on male offenders, do not adequately capture the unique experiences and motivations of female offenders. She argues that women's involvement in criminal activities is influenced by a complex interplay of factors including socio-economic conditions, gender roles, and victimization experiences. Simon emphasizes the need to develop gender-specific approaches to understanding and addressing women's involvement in crime. By recognizing the distinct circumstances and challenges faced by female offenders, policymakers and criminal justice professionals can develop more effective interventions and strategies that address the root causes of women's criminal behavior. Simon's work highlights the importance of a gender-informed perspective in the study of crime and the necessity of tailored responses to address women's involvement in the criminal justice system.

to learn more about perspective

click here brainly.com/question/31627870

#SPJ11

Nina can choose to receive $5,000 today or $5,000 a year from now. If she takes the money now and invests it at a 6% interest rate (after tax), she will have $5,300 one year from now.

By taking the money now and investing it at a 6% interest rate, Nina's initial $5,000 will grow to $5,300 after one year. This calculation takes into account the annual interest earned on the principal amount after deducting the applicable taxes. Investing the money immediately allows Nina to benefit from compounding and earn additional returns over time.

However, it's important to note that this calculation assumes a consistent and steady 6% interest rate throughout the year, and actual investment returns may vary based on market conditions and other factors.

To learn more about Investing, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/1294604

#SPJ11

Nina can choose to receive $5,000 today or $5,000 a year from now. If she takes the money now and invests it at a 6% interest rate (after tax), she will have $5,300 one year from now.

By taking the money now and investing it at a 6% interest rate, Nina's initial $5,000 will grow to $5,300 after one year. This calculation takes into account the annual interest earned on the principal amount after deducting the applicable taxes. Investing the money immediately allows Nina to benefit from compounding and earn additional returns over time.

However, it's important to note that this calculation assumes a consistent and steady 6% interest rate throughout the year, and actual investment returns may vary based on market conditions and other factors.

To learn more about Investing, click here:

brainly.com/question/1294604

#SPJ11

In an annuity, the beneficiary acquires rights under the contract upon the death of the annuitant (also called the pensioner). An annuity is a financial instrument that provides a series of regular payments to an annuitant over a period of time or lifetime.

A pensioner is a person whose lifetime determines the duration and payment of the pension. In an annuity, the beneficiary acquires rights under the contract upon the death of the annuitant (also called the pensioner). An annuity is a financial instrument that provides a series of regular payments to an annuitant over a period of time or lifetime. A pensioner is a person whose lifetime determines the duration and payment of the pension.

In the event of the death of a pensioner, the rights under the pension contract are transferred to the designated beneficiary. A beneficiary is an individual or entity designated by an annuity beneficiary to receive annuity income after death. The transfer of rights usually takes place immediately after or shortly after the annuity's death, as specified in the terms of the annuity contract.

It is important to note that the specific details and provisions regarding the transfer of rights to beneficiaries are set out in the annuity contract itself. These terms may vary depending on the type of annuity, the insurance company providing the annuity, and the choices made by the annuitant when entering into the contract. 

To know more about beneficiary to an annuity contract -

https://brainly.com/question/31785005

#SPJ11

John D. Rockefeller was able to gain legal standing for his monopolization of the oil industry in 1882 by forming the Standard Oil Company.

He used aggressive tactics to gain control of the industry, such as negotiating exclusive contracts with suppliers, buying out competitors, and using his wealth and influence to pressure or bribe politicians.

He also argued that consolidation of the industry into one company would lead to lower prices and better services. In addition, he formed a trust that allowed him to avoid the anti-trust laws of the time. His consolidation of the oil industry was eventually deemed legal by the courts and he was allowed to maintain his monopoly.

To know more about John D. Rockefeller, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/13685248

#SPJ4

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Latinos in the United States refer to people of Latin American or Spanish origin, regardless of race. This includes individuals from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish-speaking countries.

The census bureau defines Hispanic or Latino as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. It is important to note that being Hispanic or Latino is considered an ethnicity rather than a race, and individuals can identify as both Hispanic/Latino and any race. The census bureau collects this information to provide data on the country's diverse population and to help inform policies and programs that serve different ethnic groups.

To know more about Latino visit:

https://brainly.com/question/28544084

#SPJ11

The given statement "According to freeman, the responsibility principle is compatible with the separation fallacy" is False because The responsibility principle and the separation fallacy are not compatible.

The responsibility principle states that everyone has a responsibility to do what is right and act with integrity, while the separation fallacy states that one's personal life and professional life should be kept separate and that one's actions in one area do not affect the other.

The responsibility principle rejects this idea, as it is impossible to completely separate personal and professional life. When one acts with integrity in their personal life, they are more likely to do the same in their professional life and vice versa. Thus, the responsibility principle and the separation fallacy are not compatible.

To know more about separation fallacy, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/30761126

#SPJ4

Under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a signature is best defined as: D. Any mark or symbol intended as an authorized signature.

According to the UCC regulations, a signature does not necessarily have to be a traditional handwritten autograph or spelled out in full. It can be any mark or symbol that is intended to serve as an authorized signature. This means that even a handwritten mark, such as an X, can be considered a valid signature if it is intended to represent the person's agreement or endorsement.

Additionally, an official or authorized corporate or personal symbol, whether handwritten or typed, can also qualify as a signature under the UCC.

Learn more about Uniform Commercial Code (UCC),

https://brainly.com/question/20235251

#SPJ4

The need to go to different courts for legal and equitable remedies can be traced to the historical development of the English legal system. In medieval England, there were separate courts that administered legal and equitable remedies, each with its own jurisdiction and procedures.

The common law courts, such as the King's Bench and the Court of Common Pleas, were responsible for administering legal remedies. These courts applied the principles of common law, which were based on customs, precedents, and statutes. They primarily focused on providing monetary damages or specific legal remedies.On the other hand, the Court of Chancery was responsible for administering equitable remedies. Equitable remedies were developed to address situations where legal remedies were inadequate or where justice could not be fully achieved through the application of rigid legal principles. Equitable remedies included injunctions, specific performance, and the appointment of receivers. The Court of Chancery had the power to grant these remedies based on fairness, equity, and the judge's discretion.

To learn more about legal

brainly.com/question/31752298

#SPJ4

During the early years of a whole life insurance policy, the cash value will typically be relatively low. This is because a portion of the premiums paid by the policyholder.

In the early years, the cash value of a whole life insurance policy tends to grow slowly. It gradually accumulates over time as the policyholder continues to pay premiums and as interest is credited to the policy's cash value. The cash value may also be affected by factors such as investment performance and any policy loans or withdrawals made by the policyholder.

It's important to note that the primary purpose of a whole life insurance policy is to provide a death benefit to the policyholder's beneficiaries upon their death. The cash value component of the policy serves as a savings or investment feature that can potentially be accessed by the policyholder during their lifetime through policy loans or withdrawals, but its growth in the early years is typically limited.

To learn more about  life insurance policy, visit here

https://brainly.com/question/989296

#SPJ4

during the early years of a whole life insurance policy, the cash value will normally be called what?

Answer:

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.

Explanation:

National Environmental Policy Act,  Clean Air Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, three laws/legislation from the Constitution that protect citizens against the human right violation of safe healthy environment.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - The NEPA mandates that before reaching and approving any decisions, all federal agencies evaluate the impact of their proposed plans and activities on the environment.

The Clean Air Act was the country's first piece of legislation aimed at reducing air pollution. It approved studies into tools and strategies that may be used to keep track of and lessen environmental air pollution.

The Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted in order to set minimum requirements for drinking water that can be considered safe for human consumption.

Learn more about National Environmental Policy Act, here:

https://brainly.com/question/4433750

#SPJ5

The law that was passed to address the problem of rapid species loss in the United States is the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The law that was passed to address the problem of rapid species loss in the United States is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA was signed into law in 1973 and is intended to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species, as well as the ecosystems on which they depend. The law has been successful in preventing the extinction of many species, including the bald eagle, grizzly bear, and gray wolf. The ESA provides for the designation of critical habitat for endangered and threatened species, and prohibits the killing, harming, or collecting of listed species. It also prohibits any actions that may adversely affect the critical habitat of these species. The ESA is an important law that helps to protect our natural heritage and the biodiversity of our planet.

To know more about Endangered Species Act visit: https://brainly.com/question/19655487

#SPJ11