Answer:
When Sue claims the commerce clause increases government power she speaks of the federal government however when sam states that the commerce clause reduces government power he would be speaking of the state government.
Explanation:
The power of the federal government was expanded by the Commerce clause because it gave the federal government to regulate money and foreign trade.gives power to the states on everything not clearly given to the federal government.
the Commerce Clause as a restraint upon state exercises of power, absent congressional action, received no sustained justification or explanation; the clause, of course, empowers Congress, not the courts, to regulate commerce among the states.
The Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states. Many described the Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause cases as a doctrine of "New Federalism".
Answer:
False
Explanation:
Currently the company is working at full capacity and they are selling their total production at $25 per unit. If they accepted the special order, they would be receiving less money per unit sold: normal price per unit - special order price = $25 - $13 = $12, so they would be losing $12 per unit sold. The only way that they could accept this special order is if they can work overtime and produce 31,000 units instead or 30,000.
Answer:
Call an all staff meeting and give everyone the news
Explanation:
Rumors are never good, but rumors about who is getting fired are terrible. I suppose Ben is a supervisor or a manager, and it is his duty to try to prevent false rumors from spreading and panicking the employees. The simple fear of being fired can depress a person or motivate him/her, but the results are unknown until they happen. Ben cannot risk a decrease in productivity because his staff is worried about who is getting fired.
The best way to deal with this is to talk to them directly, as a group, not individually, and let them know what is going on. This is the only way that he can stop rumors, and leave no room for misinterpretation or exaggerations.
A Living Will is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity.
Answer:
The correct answer is A) inconsistent reasoning; saving $20 is saving $20.
Explanation:
Tony is making an uninformed decision or more strictly, his reasoning is inconsistent. A flat discount of $20 is applicable to all products. Whether he buys something that is worth $50 or $500, his savings would still be the same.
All other options are wrong. If e.g. he this was a flat 20% discount, his savings would have been much different. e.g. 20% of $50 is $10 while it equals to a $100 for a $500 product.
At this point, he would have to make rational decision on what he really needs to buy.
