Answer:
Debra Medina claimed that nullification was possible by state laws that could neutralize federal laws. She based her claim on the 10th Amendment, which establishes that any power not constitutionally granted to the federal government can be held by the states.
Explanation:
The Constitution doesn´t enable the nullification of federal laws by the states, and several academics have stated that it could be illegal since the Supremacy Clause pronounces federal laws as the supreme national law. So nullification would overthrow the constitutional interpretation held for 200 years.
Let us also remember that Gov. Rick Perry, who supported nullification, had already skipped the nullification issue by starting a debate about secession. This debate is a reminder of the time when state rejection of racial integration had to be stopped by the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Answer:
Bagley's ethical decision tree
Explanation:
Is the proposed action legal? If yes, does the proposed action maximize shareholder value? If yes, is the proposed action ethical? If no, would it be ethical not to take the proposed action? These are four questions that managers of all organizations should ask when confronted with a decision on an action according to Bagley's ethical decision tree
Bagley's ethical decision tree is mostly used on making ethical decision, it says a decision tree can be used to make the right choices and ultimately do the right thing especially in a situation where there is no obvious right or wrong decision but rather a right or wrong answer.
The statement that best describes the <span>Supreme Court's decision in the Brown v. Board of Education case is that it declared the segregated public schools were unconstitutional. It was Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas that lost the case. The correct answer will be D. </span>