Answer:
B. Low-level employees engaging in stock fraud
Explanation:
A: The reason A is an incorrect option is because the question specifically refers to employees of the company. Meaning that interference by outsiders does not count as embezzlement.
C: This option is incorrect because this option involves company owners, which does not refer to low-level employees, and therefore is incorrect.
D: Also does not refer to low-level employees due to the referencing to upper-level management.
The 5th amendment.
Further explanation:
If you have seen those crime shows, usually the defendant is asked if they want to plead the fifth, which means they do not have to testify in court (no self incrimination).
Answer:
WE NOT FINNA READ ALL THIS YOU CRAZY
In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.
Answer: States within the United States of America to obey the laws and public acts other other states.
Explanation: The full faith and credit clause of the United States of America constitution is contained in Article four, section one. This clause requires the various United States of America to obey and respects the legal judgements,the public acts and records of other states of the Federation. The full faith and credit clause is essential to the survival and sustainance of the unity of the United States of America,as it helps to create unity and ensures that states help and support each other to effectively executive both criminal activities and other strategic Activities.
