To secure all the evidence :)
If the President should sign such a law in place the effect would be:
- A. The value of the marginal product of apple pickers increases.
- B. The equilibrium price of apples increases.
- E. The marginal product of apple pickers increases.
<h3>What would be the effect of the Presidents policy on the economy?</h3>
By asking that the consumption of apples be increased, it would lead to a rise in the demand for apples in the country.
When this happens, it means that the revenue of apple growers would rise in the country due to increased demand.
Complete question:
Suppose that the president proposes a new law aimed at reducing healthcare costs: All Americans are required to eat one apple daily.
Which of the following statements correctly describes the effect of this apple-a-day law? Check all that apply.
A. The value of the marginal product of apple pickers increases.
B. The equilibrium price of apples increases.
C. The demand for apples remains unchanged.
D. The demand for apple pickers remains unchanged.
E. The marginal product of apple pickers increases.
F. The wage of apple pickers increases
Read more on demand here: brainly.com/question/1245771
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court had to decide whether "due process of law" means states must obey the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The observation of the Supreme Court is that the convict cannot be punished two times for the same offense. It is simple and very clear that the convict cannot be punished under the fourth and fifth amendments for same offense.
In this particular case, the prosecution has charged Frank Palko for first-degree murder and the court has given a decree as life imprisonment. But the actual nature crime amounts to second-degree murder.
So, the state of Connecticut appealed against this judgment and it has been proved that offense made by Frank Palko amounts to second-degree murder and the death penalty is awarded to convict. The Supreme Court's main decision in Palko vs Connecticut was Palko was the victim of unconstitutional double jeopardy.
