Not in the “environmental “ concept, but they could in a work setting concept.
Example-clean drinking water for employees or air filtration at a plant—- yes
Water issues 70 miles away unrelated to their plant. No
Answer:
The decision of the Supreme Court on Steagald v United States (1981) established that according to the Fourth Amendment, police officers can´t search for a suspect in a third party´s property without getting a search warrant first.
Explanation:
According to the Supreme Court, the search carried in the house of the petitioner, Gary Keith Steagald, which was conducted only with an arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons, and led to Steagald´s arrest, was a violation of the exclusionary rule stated in the Fourth Amendment that protects all citizens from illegal searches and seizures. I do agree with this decision because any effort to apprehend a suspect should never infringe nor his or a third party´s constitutional rights.
Answer:
the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.
Explanation:
Answer: The executive branch executes and enforces law. The executive branch carries out and enforces laws it can also veto a bill and refrain it from becoming a law. This means that new laws being handed out can be able to help out citizens. They can also negotiate foreign treaties and have an international agreement.
Answer:
1. "Loose lips sink ships." Share certain information can jeopardize OpSec, and result in advantages for enemy troops.
2. 1A should protect ALL speech. censoring specific words is a form of bias. People should instead be taught coping skills when presented with ideas they find objectionable. "Hate speech" presumes there is a speaker and a listener. The speaker can share anything he likes. The listener is the regulated party. When presented with objectionable ideas, he has choices: he can choose the respond calmly and reasonably; he can respond with aggression; or, he can ignore it and walk away.
