Business Law

BusinessLawHomework 5AIssueWhether or not an individual may be prosecuted infra state brutal jurisprudence when national regulations cover the kindred behavior and the federal penalties are much less RuleThe retrieve applicable in the case at bar is the achievement clause contained in Article VI of the constitution which provides This Constitution , and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance at that placefore and all Treaties made , or which shall be made , chthonian the Authority of the United States , shall be the supreme Law of the domain of a function and the Judges in every State shall be rise thereby , any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstandingAnalysisIt is fire up from the Supremacy Clause that federal justicefulness shall at all times be superior to state virtue . This means that whenever there is a conflict between the two , it is federal law that should be made to apply . Parenthetically , whenever a state law conflicts with a federal law the former maty be tell as invalid . Since the case against Sabine Consolidated , Inc , and its hot seat , Joseph Tantillo is covered by twain federal and state sinful laws , the prosecution must be based on the federal law since there is an apparent incongruity between the twoConclusionThe overt idea that the Supremacy Clause imparts is that whenever a state law conflicts with federal law , the latter shall prevail . It is and then clear that an individual cannot be prosecuted under a state criminal law when federal regulations cover the same behavior and there is a difference in the penalties prescribed by both statutesHomework 5BIssueWhether or not knowledge of the permit requirement is a condition precedent for a valid conviction under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRARuleIgnorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith .

This is the linguistic rule applicable in the case at bar which holds that persons are presumed to know the law and should therefore cannot escape liability by feigning ignorance so . A person who is uninformed of a law should liquid be held accountable for violation thereof and should not be allowed to grasp impunity because of his ignorance AnalysisDean s allegation that the government did not prove that he knew of the permit requirement should not be allowed to prosper . He is engaged in a business or patience that deals with hazardous chemicals , an undertaking that may be considered as special , he should induce put it upon himself to be acquainted with the law covering such venture . Well settled is the rule that persons who are engaged in any enterprise considered as beyond what is ordinary for a common person should grass themselves knowledgeable of the statutes essential to engage in such an enterpriseConclusionDean is presumed to have known of the permit requirement in consonance with the creation policy that ignorance of the law excuses no one The government therefore does not need to prove that he knew...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper