I am sure the answer is false
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".[2]
The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the
plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After
review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not
unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3]
was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority
for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the
end of his opinion in this decision,[4]
Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's
responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary
consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as
instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
Answer:
depression, illness, social pressure
Explanation:
common sense, don't fully trust, but its my best guess.
Answer: ethical lapse
Explanation:
An ethical lapse is an error or mistake in judgement that an individual commits which brings about a harmful outcome. It is usually as a result of an oversight as it really doesn't mean that the individual lacks integrity.
The scenario in the question is an ethical lapse. This is because the extra $25 she pocketed wasn't accounted for as it was an oversight and it wasn't that she intentionally stole the $25 or didn't account for it intentionally.
