The answer is B) First-come, First-Served
It is commonly used when there are problems price ceilings and works as a system of 'waiting lines'
This is also known as the the Queuing System and it works on the system of simply discriminating anyone based on location, age, race etc.
This works best in non-priced rationing system and ensures the development of a system that can work for everyone.
Queuing systems have been used various times in the history especially in socialist/communist states in Eastern Europe and Russia.
For a time, during World War II it was also implemented in Great Britain.
In America's history, there is only one noticeable period of rationing and that only occurred on the supply of Oil, during the 70s oil crises.
Answer:I believe the answer is D because definition of unscrupulous is to be not honest
Explanation:
because definition of unscrupulous is to be not honest, and D is the only one like that
Answer:
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 2000, ruled (6–3) that a Texas school board policy that allowed “student-led, student-initiated prayer” before varsity high-school football games was a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which generally prohibits the government from establishing, advancing, or giving favour to any religion.
the issue that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court concerned a policy that called for students to vote on whether prayers would be delivered prior to football games and to select a student who would deliver them. After the students approved the inclusion of prayers at the game, a federal district court ruled that only nonsectarian and nonproselytizing prayers could be delivered. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, ruled that any football prayer was unconstitutional, as a violation of the establishment clause.
The school board contended that control of the pregame message was left to students who also chose the speaker and the content of the message by a majority vote. Thus, according to the board, the prayer qualified as “private speech” and was protected by the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise clauses. However, the court ruled that The court was of the opinion that the policy would only lead to student messages that were, rather than private speech, actually religious speech directly sponsored and endorsed by a governmental agency.