Answer:
Any sources related to industries that cause air pollution such as Oil refineries, cigarette companies, thermal electricity generating firms and the like.
Explanation:
A biased source in a subject usually has some sort of interest in it which is usually financial. This is why we'd expect cigarette companies to lie about the effects of smoking on the lungs.
It is the same thing here. You included no options but the biased source should be one that stands to benefit from misleading the public on the effects of air pollution on health so that people are less enraged and they can continue benefitting from their harmful activities.
In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.
Detective, sergeant, inspector, police commissioner
Answer:
Yes as an investigaiter uderstanding Agathas motive would be important because she coud be getting the water cause she is realy be thirsty or she could be getting it to taget Eric by using the water excuse used to spy on him so hearing her motive would help me put as an investigator.
AS a jury it would be important to hear Agatha´s motive because I can hear why she was trespasing to get the water because she could be dehydrated and need the water. For a jury to hear her story would make to choose the choice of guilty or inicent and alos so she gets a chance to speak for herself then from what a investigator found.
