Answer:
Brayden should dispose of the gum
Explanation:
In the given scenario the law in Singapore states that having chewing gum is illegal. As far as Brayden is in Singapore he should comply with the law there.
The equal protection clause is a provision of law that states that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.
Although this gives one the right to take retain actions, in this case Brayden will be restricted from having chewing gum.
Of he is allowed to carry chewing gum then he expects to be treated differently from others in Singapore. This violates the equal protection clause
Answer:
It cannot be sold to a person who lives in another state. It is recognized in all states. It is only recognized by the federal government.
Explanation:
Answer:
pocket picking
Explanation:
I think that is the answer
Threats of violation: these are acts that directly breach the ethical principle of behavior. They do what the principle says should not be done. Threats of invalidation: these are arguments that the principle in question is baseless, unjust, misapplied in this case, or otherwise invalid....
It would either be b or c I don’t believe it’s one of the others I had to chose I would pick b
