Blog

Final Assignment  Add one page and a half and adjust what it need for the rest of the essay. The maximum
of the assignment is 1800 words in total. breaking it down to 450 for each question or it
could be more for one and a little less for the other.
adjust in the assignment by adding court case and changing or deleting whatever
was in the paper seems not relative to answer the question directly. Also I have
provided the cases on the paper for the following questions:first Story Question:
? 1. What arguments could be put forward to support the position that the
two provisions are unconstitutional?
? Court Cases for this is: Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995) Metro
Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
(1990) Richmond v. J. A. Carson Company (1989)
? 2. What is the likelihood that these arguments would succeed in federal
court and that either provision would be found unconstitutional?
Find two relative court cases to this question
Second Story question:
? 1. Did the search of Billy’s car violate his 4 th  Amendment rights? Court
Cases for this is:
United States V. Ross (1982)
Miranda v. Arizona (1996)
? 2. Was Billy’s confession voluntary according to the Supreme Court’s
jurisprudence on consent in the criminal procedure context?
Court Cases for this is:
Miranda v. Arizona (1996)
**** Plus Add another court cases if neededAttached files:
Story of the questions asked on (Instructions and questions of the assignment)
Sample of the paper format and how to answer it in the file (Sample Paper)
Assignment needed the adjustments

is on the file attached under the name of (Final
Assignment Amman 2222) Answer Preview…………..What arguments could be put forward to support the position that the two provisions are unconstitutional. Discussion. While the decision of the CEO of the Super Shield Systems (SSS), Frank Jonson, to sue the Department of Defense (DoD) might seem untenable, the requirements used by the agency to disqualify his organization from the award of the contract are unconstitutional. Aside from providing the lowest bid and meet other specifications contained in the request for bid document, the organization has policies that comply with the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Act. Therefore, the decision to fight the decision of the DoD in court is appropriate and would lead to victory for the plaintiff on several legal grounds since some precedents to this case exist. First, the set-aside rules of the DoD for this contracting program are a form of gender discrimination against the potential contractors because it disqualifies them on the degree that their businesses are not owned or controlled by women. Secondly, the unconstitutionality of the contract requirement can be found on the failure of the federal agency to fulfill its obligations under the equal protection element of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As noted in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995), the level of scrutiny that the DOD must be strict and reflective of its preference for promoting specific interests of the………….APA 1598 words
$24.00 – Purchase Checkout