PLEASE READ I DONT HAVE THE TEXTBOOK
What do political scientists mean when they speak of constitutionalism? What does it mean to speak of constitutionalism as distinct from particular constitutions? What are some of the features of modern constitutionalism that may account for it having become, in effect, the only form of government recognized as legitimate?
Dialogue Period 1
Dialogue 1. It is clear from the readings in Human Resource Development that the authors see Human Resources Development as more effective than Human Resources and Strategic Human Resource Management. Provide an initial post summarizing what you believe is the advantage of HRD in managing employees as we move into the future. Consider multicultural and global contexts as part of your reflection. What are the implications of an HRD perspective for leaders and their organizations? Respond to at least three of your colleagues by adding to or respectfully challenging what they have submitted. Ensure all posts are supported by scholarly research.
We have one discussion board each period in this class. Remember to include references to support your opinions. Please complete Dialogue 1 online with your opening post and three response posts.INITIAL POST NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE NEXT HOUR
THIS ISONE ASSIGNMENT. PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS . NO AL OR CHAT GPT USAGE PLEASE. I WILL UPLOAD SOME CHAPTERS. THE ASSIGNMENT IS UPLOADED
Reflection Papers (5 x 25 points each = 125 points): These reflection papers will consist of you
responding to various prompts that I post on Blackboard. These papers should be 2-3 doubles
spaced pages in length. They will consist of your own personal reflections on papers, theories,
and other topics specified in the prompt. You may use outside sources to reinforce your point,
but you must use APA citations. Make sure to completely answer all aspects of the prompts to
get full credit. You are encouraged to submit case briefs early if you have the time to complete
them. Waiting until the day they are due is a recipe to forget the assignment and/or submit
poorer quality work than you are capable of.
FOR CHAPTER 8
I UPLOADED AN EXAMPLE OF A REFLECTION THAT I HAVE DONE AND THIS ALSO GOES FOR CHAPTER
Please read. I dont have the textbook
A law is a rule of conduct developed by a government or society over time. It has three distinct characteristics:
Authority: It is created by a recognized body (like a Parliament or Legislature).
Obligation: It is not a suggestion; citizens are generally required to follow it.
Sanction: If the rule is broken, there is a predefined consequence, such as a fine, community service, or imprisonment.
Describing How Law Functions
To understand how law works in practice, it helps to look at its primary roles:
1. Maintaining Order
Laws provide a framework for peaceful coexistence. For example, traffic laws ensure that millions of drivers can share the road safely by following the same set of rules.
2. Protecting Rights and Liberties
The law sets boundaries on what others (including the government) can do to you. It protects fundamental interests like freedom of speech, the right to property, and personal safety.
3. Resolving Disputes
When two parties disagreewhether it’s a contract dispute between companies or a disagreement between neighborsthe law provides a neutral forum (the court system) to settle the matter based on evidence rather than force.
4. Establishing Standards
Laws set minimum standards for quality and safety. This includes everything from the building codes that ensure houses are sturdy to the regulations that ensure the food you buy is safe to eat.
What is Newton’s second law
Answer all questions in correct format using proper heading/requirements from previous assignments.
The assignment should be 500 words or more. Please refer to previous assignments for heading instructions.
Corruption is fueled by systemic weakness and misaligned incentives. It persists when monopoly power meets low accountability, allowing greed to outweigh public duty. Key supports include economic pressure (low wages), lack of transparency, and a culture of patronage that prioritizes personal loyalty over the law.
Before you begin writing your paper, take time to read all general and specific instructions carefully, so that you don’t lose points for not complying with formatting, proper citation of references, honor code, and other technical requirements.
You may also want to review the explanation of the FIRAC model in iCollege (in the Syllabus module) and in the LGLS 3610 E-Textbook (in the Content Section of the Introduction to the Law Module).
Youll find readings, hints to writing a better IRAC analysis, as well as three videos on what IRAC is and how to use it. Even the fourth lecture video for the Intro to Law Module discusses legal reasoning and the FIRAC model.
Collectively, the FIRAC papers will count 30% of your grade in LGLS 3610. FIRAC Paper # 2 is worth 10% of your course grade.
Although the papers have been weighted differently in computing your course grade, (as indicated below) each paper has been graded on a 100-point scale, with 80 points allocated to content and 20 points to writing. This paper will be scored using the same scoring rubric used to grade your earlier papers.
Your goal is to turn in a polished, readable, and error-free paper that represents your “best” writing and analysis. Several of the first FIRAC papers had spelling, typographical, and grammatical errors that careful proofreading would have caught. For proofreading strategies, see the General Instructions for FIRAC Paper #1.
Good luck!
Poor Brandi Albright — she and the Bistro are being sued again!
Carefully read the scenario on the next webpage. Then, using the FIRAC model, analyze Whitter’s claims against both Jake Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro. Even though you have two defendants, combine your analysis into a single paper, with only one statement of Facts, Issue, Rules, Application, and Conclusion.
FACTS: Summarize the material facts, including the procedural facts (who sued whom and for what) in your own words. While it’s important to tell the “story” of what happened, try not to include unnecessary detail. It is also generally a good idea to revisit the fact statement after you written the application section, so that you can verify that every fact used in your analysis was first included in the fact statement.
ISSUE: Because Whitters is suing two defendants, based on three different legal theories, it might be too difficult to draft a one-sentence issue statement that also incorporates some of the material facts (not just the parties’ names) that will help you in your analysis as you attempt to answer the question. If it helps you to write a clear issue, you may want to write separate sentences for each defendant.
RULE: I want you to identify and fully explain the elements of each of the legal rules (in separate paragraphs) that you will need to analyze the scenario: negligence, negligence per se, and two state statutes in the scenario (Right of Way in Crosswalks and Liability for the Acts of Intoxicated Persons).
Remember to summarize each of the legal rules objectively, in your own words, and without reference to the facts of the scenario. In addition, make sure to write in narrative format — no numbered or bulleted lists!
REQUIRED REFERENCES: Although you will need to cite the Mythigan statutes in your paper, references to Right of Way in Cross-Walks and Liability for Acts of Intoxicated Persons statutes will not count toward your two required references. Instead, you can refer to content in the Torts lectures slides or to readings or videos in the Torts Module in the e-book related to negligence, negligence per se, and dram shop/social host liability laws. Remember to incorporate your citations into the text of your paper where you use them, and not in a separate bibliography. For references to lectures, indicate which lecture and slide number in your parenthetical citation. For e-book links, include the name of the item and an embedded link to the source. Make sure to discuss the 2018 Georgia dram shop case, Sutton v Dave’s Tavern , that found the tavern liable.
Note that for FIRAC Paper #2, I will deduct 5 points from your FIRAC score for each missing resourceand 10 points for each reference not provided on iCollege or in the e-book (so you will be penalized for independently researching for citations)!
APPLICATION: In this section, you will examine the liability of each defendant separately. First, you will need to apply each element of negligence to Jake’s conduct to determine if he negligently caused Whitter’s injuries. After you discuss whether Jake violated the Right of Way in Crosswalks statute, you’ll need to explain if that makes him negligent per se for Whitters’ injuries, applying each element of that legal rule to the facts., and the Right of Way in Crosswalks statute to the facts that may or may not impose liability on Jake Daniels for the accident that caused Andrew Whitters’ injuries.
Then apply the rules related to the state’s dram shop law (Liability for Acts of Intoxicated Persons statute) to Whitters’ claim against Brandi’s Bistro to the facts that may or may not impose liability on the bistro under this statute. Do NOT consider whether a violation of this statute would make Jake negligent per se.
To make it easier for your reader to follow your reasoning, use separate paragraphs for each legal rule you are analyzing. In addition, remember to explicitly connect each component of each legal rule to the appropriate facts in the recommended rule/fact, rule/fact format. This should be the longest section of your paper, as you need to guide your reader, step by step, through your analysis to your conclusion.
CONCLUSION: Even though you have two defendants and several legal theories, try to write your conclusion succinctly in a couple of sentences. Make sure to briefly state your reasons, but don’t repeat your analysis. You can use the format “Because X, Y, and Z, Daniels will (or will not) be liable to Whitters for …” and “Because A, B, and C, Brandi’s Bistro will (or will not) be liable to Whitters for …”
Word Count: Don’t forget to include your word count beneath your conclusion.
TurnItIn: Submit your paper early enough that if you have a high TurnItIn score (more than 30% on either the plagiarism or the AI detection tool), you can review it, making sure that you are not relying too heavily on the wording of the scenario or the statement of the legal rules in the slides or from course materials posted on iCollege or in the e-book.
Brandi Albright operates a bistro in Atlantis, Mythigan. After a bad day at work, Jake Daniels stopped at Brandi’s Bistro for a few drinks, as he did several times a week.
In less than an hour, Jake consumed three Whiskey Sours. Brandi, the bartender, continued to serve him drinks even after he began stumbling around, slurred his speech, and got unusually and unreasonably angry at the people near him. Finally, Jake pulled car keys out of his pocket, pushed his glass across the bar to Brandi, and said “One more for the road.” Brandi served him, and after Jake finished the drink, he stood up, grabbed his car keys, and headed out the door.
Jake got into his car and began his drive home. About six blocks from Brandi’s Bistro, Jake failed to stop at a stop sign and hit Andrew Whitters, a pedestrian, who was crossing the street in a crosswalk. In addition to scrapes and bruises, Whitters suffered a concussion and several fractures, including a compound fracture of his femur. He was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery to stabilize his fracture and repair the damage to the adjacent muscles, nerves, and tendons. Whitters remained in the hospital for three days for additional surgery. After months of physical therapy, Whitters can walk, but doctors say he will always have a limp.
Andrew Whitters has sued Jake Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro for his injuries. Whitters’s suit against Jake is premised on traditional negligence in causing the accident, and negligence per se for his failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, as required in the Official Code of Mythigan Annotated: O.C.M.A. 40-6-91 (2020) – Right of way in crosswalks (which is, coincidentally, identical to the Georgia statute)
(a) The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching and is within one lane of the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For the purposes of this subsection, “half of the roadway” means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel.
Whitters bases the lawsuit against Brandi’s Bistro solely on O.C.G.S. 51-1-40 (2020): Liability for acts of intoxicated persons. [Many states have similar statutes, which are commonly called Dram Shop Acts and/or Social Host Liability Acts.] Make sure to discuss the 2018 Georgia dram shop case, Sutton v Dave’s Tavern , that found the tavern liable.
This Mythigan dram shop statute, which is also identical to Georgia law, provides
(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that the consumption of alcoholic beverages, rather than the sale or furnishing or serving of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death and property damage, inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or upon another person, except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section.
(b) A person who sells, furnishes, or serves alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking age shall not thereby become liable for injury, death, or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such person, including injury or death to other persons; provided, however, a person who willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully sells, furnishes, or serves alcoholic beverages to a person who is not of lawful drinking age, knowing that such person will soon be driving a motor vehicle, or who knowingly sells, furnishes, or serves alcoholic beverages to a person who is in a state of noticeable intoxication, knowing that such person will soon be driving a motor vehicle, may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person when the sale, furnishing, or serving is the proximate cause of such injury or damage. Nothing contained in this Code section shall authorize the consumer of any alcoholic beverage to recover from the provider of such alcoholic beverage for injuries or damages suffered by the consumer. (emphasis added)
Even if you find the Bistro liable under the Dram Shop law, do not discuss whether that could make the bar negligent per se , as I want you to discuss this legal rule only in the context of Whitters suit against Jake for violating the cross-walk statute.
Using the FIRAC model, analyze Whitters’s claims against both Jake Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro.
Also I have attached the firac 1 graded rubric. And improvisations.
