Answer:
B The ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest and does not unreasonably limit alternative channels of communication.
Explanation:
The court will base its decision on its determination that the ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest and does not unreasonably limit alternative channels of communication. While the First Amendment protects the freedoms of speech and assembly, the government may reasonably regulate speech-related conduct in public forums through content‑neutral time, place, and manner regulation. Here, the ban on camping overnight in the park, a content-neutral regulation of a public forum, would be evaluated by the court based on if the ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest and does not unreasonably limit alternative channels of communication. In this scenario, the question would be if the ban on the use of the park will limit alternative channels of communicating the message of the scout leader and if yes the ban may be lifted and if not, it will not be lifted.
Answer:
Self-Concept
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that Katrina's understanding of herself would be called her Self-Concept. This term refers to a perception of ones-self or in other words the way we see ourselves based on behavior, unique characteristics, and our abilities. Which is what Katrina is using to describe the kind of person that she is.
Answer:
unconstitutional because of its excessive approach.
Explanation:
As you may already know, all US states are subject to federal laws, which must be obeyed throughout the United States. However, all states in the country have the autonomy to formulate their own legislation that will be valid for the entire territory of the state, as long as it does not go against any federal law. There is a federal regulation that states that it is not allowed to hinder or prevent interstate commerce. From this we can state that the statute created and approved by the state of Vermont, which prohibits the sale of any maple syrup not produced in Vermont, is unconstitutional.
This statute is unconstitutional because, in addition to having an excessive approach, it goes against a federal norm.
Answer:
I think that it might be B
Explanation:
