Credit unions are typically owned and run by members and credit unions limit membership to certain people or groups.
Answer:
4
Explanation:
This could be anything, we don't know jakes number?
The available options are:
A. Programs work better when caregivers understand families and involve them in respectful ways.
B. Communication goes one way: caregivers share information with families.
C. Families take a passive role in the education of their children.
D. Programs predetermine what will be offered and complete the planning and organizing.
Answer:
Programs work better when caregivers understand families and involve them in respectful ways.
Explanation:
Family-centered programs focus on cooperating with families to recognize and realize the families' unique situations adequately.
Hence, considering the available options, the accurate answer to the question is that "Programs work better when caregivers understand families and involve them in respectful ways, " as the best statement describes the premise of family-centered programs.
In other words, a family-centered program is the most practical means to secure the safety, permanency, and well-being of the families. It involves committing, enhancing, and assisting the families.
ANSWER: Marketing because it is simply advertising
EXPLANATION: photographer who is taking pictures for the advert purpose of a brand is actively involved in the Marketing career path of the company he works with. this is because advertising(marketing communication) is part of a long chain of marketing techniques used by the company to promote their products and also to get returning and new customers patronizing them much more.
marketing communication is embedded into marketing which is the main career. although what the photographer is doing is part of the marketing communications but the career pathway of which he is involved with is the MARKETING career.
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.
Clark v. Arizona
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 2006
Decided June 29, 2006
Full case name
Eric Michael Clark v. State of Arizona
Docket no.
05-5966
Citations
548 U.S. 735 (more)
126 S. Ct. 2709; 165 L. Ed. 2d 842
Case history
Prior
Defendant convicted, Coconino County Superior Court, Sept. 3, 2003; affirmed, Ariz. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2005; review denied, Ariz., May 25, 2005; cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 797 (2005).
Holding
Due process does not prohibit Arizona's use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong. The state could also constitutionally limit a defendant's evidence of mental defect to only what is relevant to that insanity test, even when mens rea is an element of the charged crime. Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority
Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito; Breyer except parts III-B, III-C, and ultimate disposition
Concur/dissent
Breyer
Dissent
Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(A)
The Court affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia for killing a police officer.
The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time that they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing that he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime.
The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity and not to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. Evidence is admissible only to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission.
In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong and so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.
