Answer:
A. both Jonathan's and Joanna's cases
Explanation:
Legal implication: The term "legal implication" is described as a phenomenon that is considered as the consequences or results in which an individual in being involved something inappropriate according to the specific law. Legal implications can either be negative or positive.
Ethical implication: The term "ethical implication" is described as a phenomenon in which various matter is being considered based on an ethical viewpoint. It is considered as the human principle based on wrong and right.
In the question above, the correct answer is A.
I would say some people take, individual differences too personally, and then conflict starts, people fight, argue, even start wars.
Which suggest <span> that the powers of the federal government and the states are distinctly separate and each has absolute sovereignty in its own sphere.
But the dual federalism view has one big loophole in its way of government, which is when the Federal and state government each created a regulation that contradict each other, citizens would not know which should they obey.</span>
Answer:
Price controls can also distort the effect of supply and demand on a market. Governments sometimes set a maximum or a minimum price for a product or service, and this results in either the supply or the demand being artificially inflated or deflated.
Explanation:
also if you can can you mark me brainliest... thanx
Answer:
The Model Penal Code divides criminal intent into four states of mind listed in order of culpability: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.
Explanation:
For general intent, the prosecution need only prove that the defendant intended to do the act in question, whereas proving specific intent would require the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to bring about a specific consequence through his or her actions, or that he or she perform the action
not sure correct me if I'm wrong
