Answer:
C. Emergency Management Assistance Compact.
Explanation:
Emergency Management Assistance Compact is a non-binding, collaborative arrangement among its members that provides a legal framework for states to assist one another in managing a disaster or an emergency that has been declared by the governor of the impacted state.
Emergency Management Assistance Compact is a mutually help agreement reached between the states and territories of the United States and this reach agreement made it possible for states in the United States to share resources when witness either natural or man made disaster.
I believe the answer is: <span>dark grey cat
According to the </span><span>concept of a generalization gradient, if we exposed to a certain stimulus for a long period of time, we tend to will lower the power of response to the stimulus over time.So, according to this concept, the cat that most likely make him happy would be a less darker cat that he used to like when he's a child.</span>
Some types of requirements, although they favor one protected class of people over another, can be legally justified if they are a <u>business necessity</u> to the job or work the employee will do.
<h3>What is a
business necessity?</h3>
In the business sphere, the necessity refers to the legal concept used to justify an employer’s employment criteria that disproportionately affect a group of individuals. This justification resides in the possibility that a company has legitimate reasons to operate under such restrictive employment practices.
Because of this, a firm can favor one protected class of people over another, can be legally justified if they are a <u>business necessity</u> to the job or work the employee will do.
Read more about business necessity
brainly.com/question/12306736
#SPJ1
Answer:In 1855 by Karl Benz
Explanation:
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.
