Answer and Explanation:
Kant's principle of universalizability suggests that we do what we feel should be generalised or in his words universalised. I'm there words for something to be considered morally valid it should be generally satisfactory and not just apply to one person
On the other hand his principle of humanity suggests that we do those things that treat each human being as though he is the end not the means. In other words, we do not consider another human being to be something that could be used to achieve another thing but the sole purpose or end for which anything is done
The above do have contradictory applications since by generalizing a thing we could still be using a human being and not making him the end in this respect. I believe the best of the two principles however is the humanity principle since by holding this principle dear every human being would treat each other better and the universalizability principle would still apply.
Felons and ex-felons, and new immigrants who are not yet citizens, are included in the voting-age population. In approximating voter turnout, the voting age population for a political unit is regularly used as the denominator for the amount of individuals eligible to vote in a given appointment which is this technique has been shown to drop in accuracy when a larger proportion of the voting-age population is unqualified to vote.
Congress could then use a threat in jail for withholding evidence *but take it from someone else I'm not sure*
C. They are usually a low-risk investment.
If I'm not mistaking i think it was 40 yrs
