A person authorized to execute all regular transactions connected ...

[Pineappleeh]

A person authorized to execute all regular transactions connected with a business is called a:
 a. universal agent b. special agent
  c. gratuitous agent d. subagent
  e. none of the other choices

Question 2

Freedom of Speech. In 1988, as a result of a general election, Arizona added Article XXVIII to its constitution. Article XXVIII provided that English was to be the official language of the state and required all state officials and employees to use only the English language during the performance of government business. Maria-Kelly Yniguez, an employee of the Arizona Department of Administration, frequently spoke in Spanish to Spanish-speaking persons with whom she dealt in the course of her work. Yniguez claimed that Article XXVIII violated constitutionally protected free speech rights and brought an action in federal court against the state governor, Rose Mofford, and other state officials. Does Article XXVIII violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

[josephsuarez]

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

Freedom of speech
The court held that the state constitutional provision establishing English as the official language for state employees was invalid because it was overbroad and gave rise to sub-stantial potential for inhibiting constitutionally protected free speech rights. The court stated that Article XXVIII, by its literal wording, is capable of reaching expression protected by the First Amendment, such as Gutierrez's a co-plaintiff's right to communicate in Spanish with his Spanish-speaking constituents. To determine whether the Article XXVIII reached a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, the court had to first interpret the meaning of Article XXVIII. The plaintiffs (Yniguez and others) claimed that it was a blanket prohibition on the use of any language other than English in the state workplace. The defendants, however, considered the article to be merely a directive for state and local governmental entities to act in English when acting in their sovereign capacities. The court held that the article's plain language indicated that with limited exceptions, the article prohibited the use of any language other than English by all officers and employees of all political subdivisions in Arizona while performing their official duties. Given this interpretation, the court concluded that there is a realistic danger of, and a substantial potential for, the unconstitutional application of Article XXVIII. The article was therefore voided by the court.

[Pineappleeh]

Great answer, keep it coming

[bimper21]

YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review