Superfoods Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Superfoods - Essay Example One of the world healthiest food? Yes we are talking about almonds. Almonds definitely are listed as superfood too. These are full of vitamin E, copper, fiber, magnesium and phosphorus. Almonds act as a catalyst to boost up the functioning of brain. It provides double protection against diabetes and their healthy fats are very useful to lose weight also ensuring the lower risk of weight gain. Pistachio nuts are regarded as superfoods as they help you in losing the weigh due to their low cholesterol level and effective fibers. Talking about figures thirty pistachio nuts cause you only 100 calories. Most importantly they are tasty and addictive. Once you start eating pistachio nuts you can barely keep your hands off unless and until all you got on plate is their shells.Talking about superfoods how we can forget carrots? Carrots are the ultimate source of Vitamin A. This beautiful, crunch red vegetable comes with numerous advantages. â€Å"Carrots are good for eyes†, we’ve been listening this statement from our childhood and it is true. Carrots are perfect for good vision as Vitamin A is transported to retina thus providing instant pigmentation for good vision. Also carrots prevent from cancer and reduce the risk of other fatal disease by increasing the immune system. Even some components of carrots are being used to produce anticancer medicines. Carrots are also useful for anti-aging purposes. So all the above mentioned foods are superfoods which intake can ensure you a sound body with sound mind.

Ase brief Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 5000 words

Ase brief - Research Paper Example In order for the appointments to be effective, the commissions were required to be delivered to the appointees. Most of the commission had been duly delivered. Jefferson argued that the remaining commissions were void since they had not been delivered by the expiration of president Adams’ presidential term. Marbury, an intended appointee applied to the US Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to ensure that the commissions were duly delivered. II. The Law Pursuant to Article III Section 2 Clause 2 of the US Constitution, all cases relative to Ambassadors, public Consuls and ministers and cases in which the state is a party, the Supreme Court is possessed of original jurisdiction. Any other case falling under the authority of the judiciary, the Supreme Court will have the authority to determine appeals subject to any exceptions and/or regulations that Congress may apply. Under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act 1789, the Supreme Court has the authority to hear appeals from circuit courts and state courts and will also have the authority to issue prohibitive writs to district courts and writs of mandamus to any appointed courts or individuals in public office. III. Legal Questions/Issues The main legal questions/issues were: Is the claimant entitled to the commission?Does the claimant have a legal remedy? Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to review Congressional decisions and to ascertain whether or not such decisions are constitutional and valid? Does Congress have the authority to broaden the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as contained in Article III of the US Constitution? Does the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction include the authority to issue a writ of mandamus? IV. Holding/Decision and Action The US Supreme Court denied the writ of Mandamus with the result that the claimant did not obtain the commission. V. Opinion John Marshall, delivered the opinion of the court. The Court thus concluded that the claimant was entitled to the commission since it took effect once the Executive exercised its constitutional power of appointment and that power was the final act required of the executive exercising the authority. Therefore, once the commission was signed by the president it became effective. The court also ruled that the claimant did indeed have a legal remedy as it is implicit in the protection of civil rights: any person claiming harm has a right to the protection of the law. The US Supreme Court also ruled that the US Supreme Court has the power to review congressional decisions and to ascertain the constitutionality and validity of those decisions. It is the judiciary’s duty to state the law. In the application of the law to specific cases, the judiciary also has a duty to interpret and explain the applicable rule. When laws contradict each other, the Court has a duty to decide between the two. In all cases, the Constitution, the supreme law of the land will prevail where it is inconsistent with any other law. Moreover, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the authority to expand upon the original jurisdiction accorded the Supreme Court beyond that conferred by Article III of the US Constitution. If Congress had such an authority, the Constitutional basis of original jurisdiction would be entirely meaningless. Finally, the Court ruled that the US Supreme Court did not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus within the parameters of its original jurisdic