Answer:
The correct answer is: True.
Explanation:
<u>Moral imperatives can be understood as strong principles that lead a person through life to act in ways he/she considers morally right. </u>
<u>Moral imperatives are not utilitarian; this means that the person does not act in favor of the consequences that will result from acting in a particular way, but rather because acting in such a way, it's the right thing to do.</u>
<u>The concept of moral imperative was described by Immanuel Kant, and they were part of the broader concept of categorical imperatives.</u>
In conclusion, to the statement: <u>A moral imperative</u> prescribes an action, not for the sake of some result, but simply because that action is our moral duty, the correct answer is: True.
<span>This is The trait perspective on personality. This theory indicates that the personality is composed of a separate and stable trait that makes us think and act in a certain distinctive way. <span>Examples of individual traits may be extraversion or social introversion.
I hope my answer can help you.
</span></span>
Answer:
By joining interest groups, individuals can participate in ways that go beyond simple voting. They can interact with others with similar views. They can become civically engaged by becoming more connected to their communities, they can participate in protests and letter-writing campaigns, and they can inform others about the issues.
Explanation:
so like they can get more civically engaged and inform others about important issues that are in progress right now and get more connected with their communities.
Answer: A. The statute burdens foreign commerce
Explanation:
The options are:
A. The statute burdens foreign commerce.
B. The statute violates equal protection guarantees because it is not rational to prohibit the sale of foreign beef but not foreign leather.
C. The statute substantially interferes with the vendor's right to earn a living under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The statute constitutes a taking without due process of law.
From the question, we are informed that a cattle-producing state adopted a statute that requires any food service business operating in the state to serve beef raised in the United States and that a licensed hot dog vendor who worked at a football field within the state and who had been buying hot dogs made with foreign beef for the past several years calculated that switching to an all-beef hot dog made from United States beef would reduce his profits by 10%.
The vendor then hired an attorney to challenge the statute and the attorney discovered during research into the case that most of the footballs used at the football field at which the vendor worked were made of foreign leather.
Based on the above scenario, it should be noted that it is the Congress that has power to regulate foreign commerce. Hence, in this scenario, the state adopting a legislation that requires the private vendors to favor the breed served in the United States over the foreign products is outside its powers scope. Only the congress can make such decision.
