Differentiate between parliamentary and presidential. class 9 Need it ASAP..will mark BRAINLIES!!!

Awife was having an affair with her neighbor. the wife and her husband had a prenuptial agreement that prevented the wife from receiving any of the husband’s sizable fortune in the event of a divorce. the wife and her neighbor formed a plan to murder the husband and run away together with the wife’s inheritance. the neighbor shot the husband one evening, killing him instantly, then drove to a town 100 miles away and checked into a motel. later that night, the police showed up at the motel with a valid warrant for the neighbor’s arrest. after the neighbor was arrested and placed in a police car, the police asked the motel clerk for permission to search the room, and the clerk granted the request. the police found the gun hidden in the tank of the toilet. the wife and the neighbor were each charged with first-degree murder and tried separately. at her trial, the wife sought to suppress any evidence of the gun, arguing that it was seized illegally. what is the prosecution’s strongest response to this argument? athe motel clerk gave the police permission to search the room. bthe wife was not staying in the motel room where the gun was found. cthe gun was found in a search incident to a lawful arrest. dthe neighbor did not have a reason

Consider the role of dr. kenny in the novel. how does rukmani feel about him, and what theme is represented by their interactions? respond in at least 150 words.

Research and review one of the following cases: 1. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc. 2. young vs ups 3. vance vs ball state university after you have thought through and understand the case answer the following: 1. explain the facts of the case leading to the dispute. 2. define and show understanding of each of the terms assigned to your case. break the laws into components where necessary. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) disparate treatment discrimination, 4)disparate impact discrimination vance vs ball state university: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) hostile work environment, 4) a supervisor for title vii purposes young vs ups: 1) title vii, 2) pregnancy discrimination act, 3)american's with disabilities act, 4) reasonable accommodation 3.how do the above concepts come into play in the case? 4. what rule of law came from the case? what did the court decide? 5. based on your understanding of employment law was the ruling correct? explain using a legal principle.