Ayuda para la tarea de derecho
Esta es una herramienta de asistencia legal basada en tecnología de procesamiento de lenguaje natural que puede ayudar a los usuarios a encontrar rápidamente textos legales y explicaciones relevantes ingresando preguntas o palabras clave. La ayuda para la asignación de leyes utiliza los modelos GPT de OpenAI para analizar de manera inteligente las dudas del usuario y brindar respuestas relacionadas con esas preguntas legales. Al mismo tiempo, el proyecto puede aprender y optimizarse continuamente en función de los comentarios de los usuarios.
La ayuda con la tarea de derecho es un asistente legal de IA basado en la API OpenAI y la base de datos pgvector que puede ayudar a los usuarios a consultar y comprender rápidamente las leyes y regulaciones de los estados de EE. UU. y los principales países del mundo. Vale la pena ayudar a la gente corriente a comprender y aplicar mejor la ley y mejorar los conocimientos jurídicos.
- This excerpt describes circumstances that led to the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia. In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman,and Richard Loving, a white man were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage ,the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years -Legal Information Institute, www.lake cornell.edu (accessed May 9,2019) Why did the U.S Supreme Court unanimously rule that Virginia's interracial marriage law was unconstitutional? The ban violated the principle of federalism described in the Tenth Amendment. The ban violated the equal protection and due process clauses found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The ban violated the right to a jury trial in the Sixth Amendment. The ban violated the right to free exercise of religion in the First Amendment.
- 6 The possession of dru paraphernalia is illegal in Texas. D False True Previous Multiple Choice 1 point
- Question 12 (1 point) You make a legal stop at stop sign in an intersection. Your view is blocked to the right by a large bush. is it legal to enter the intersection a few feet and stop again? Why or why not? square
- Read the excerpt and answer the question that follows. We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs __ are __ deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. -Chief Justice Earl Warren Brown v. Board of Education, May 17, 1954 Which previous Supreme Court decision protected the practice described in this excerpt? A Sweatt v. Painter B Hernandez v. Texas C Plessy v. Ferguson D Wisconsin v. Yoder
- Question 8 (1 point) You have the right of way when a the law says you have it. b you arrive at an intersection first. C other drivers give it to you. d the other driver in on your right.
