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

Business Law Assignment - Coursework Example The paper tells that in the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 2 refers to the qualifications that must be met to serve as a member of the House of Representatives. It states that â€Å"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age 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 requirements to become a Senator, by stating that â€Å"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine 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 are found in Article 2, Section one. The document states that â€Å"no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither 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 Statesâ€Å". The Age requirement for the House of Representatives is five years less than the requirements for senate and ten 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 argues that the ordin ance violates the equal protection, because there is no rational basis to suppose that children are at a greater danger being near a class E dance hall than a skating rink. I disagree with this statement. The Equal Protection clause states that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction 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 extensive history of supreme court cases that has led up to the current guidelines on interpreting this clause. Some of the most famous of these cases had to do with equality between races, women’s suffrage and the rights of immigrants. Currently the equal protection clause is interpreting as protecting state governments from discriminating against these types of rights--fundamental or inalienable rights. For cases like Stanglin’s, where no fundamental rights are involved, the state ne ed 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 youth 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 don’t 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 imposed by local governments. It is to protect people from arbitrary and unjust discrimination of the law. Question 3: The primary element in this case, is the fact that Hernandez relied upon a promise that a business made to him, which they failed to keep causing him to suffer monetary loss. Thus I am certain Hernandez should win this case given that the circumstances meet the criteria for promissory estoppel. The t ext defines a promise in a promissory estopp

Answer to questions about Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Research Paper - 1

Answer to questions about Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) - Research Paper Example ic limited organizations (primarily Enron and WorldCom and the collapse of Arthur Anderson), the Congress felt that there was a need for strict auditory regulations and monitoring. Therefore, to restore the investor confidence in public firms’ auditing and financial reporting, the PCAOB was established (Goelzer). I believe one of the key factors of the AICPA was that of self-regulation by those in the accounting profession. This is one of the reasons behind the substantial loss in standardization and therefore to create a level playing field for all public companies it was important to create a separate entity that solely looked into auditing control measures and ensured that the precedent set by Enron and WorldCom and many others was not repeated (Goelzer). Public organizations ought to maximize the interest of the public and therefore it became that a separate legal entity was established for their auditory regulation, as opposed to the AICPA which oversaw the accounting and auditing practices of non-profit organizations (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). The PCAOB was created because the roles and responsibilities of auditors in public companies were broadening. Audit firms were increasingly providing consultancy services and the work of the auditors was directly tied to the cost incurred by them. Therefore, the pressure to carry out auditing cost effectively increased on auditors which resulted in them not investigating matters on which they had slight doubts for fear of â€Å"wasting† the money if it turned out that there was no fraud. Consequently, the PCAOB restricted the advisory services provided by auditing firms. Moreover, the PCAOB could set auditing standards for public companies. It separated the auditors from the management of the company, the self-regulated function of accounting was now taken over by the PCAOB and the management and the auditors were both legally obliged to report the company’s internal control and financial