the answer is, "integrity versus despair." hope this helped!
There are various general approaches to social responsibilities and can be devided into four basic stances: Obstructionist, Defensive, Accommodative, and Proactive (Amanda, 2008). “First lie, then deny” would be consistent with the Obstructionist stance approach. It is to hinder or get in the way of, or stop something. An organization which holds an obstructionist stance “tries to block and stop what is going on” and avoid corporate social responsibility (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). They do not make social responsibility an effort, instead making profits the most important aspect of its business. Obstructive businesses viewed as immoral by some people since they may pollute natural lands, abuse their employees or cheat customers.
Answer:
Farming allowed people to control how the crops are made and what crops are made
Hello. You forgot to enter the answer options. The options are:
"United States v O'Brein, United States v. Eichman, Korematsu v. United States, Abrams et al. v. United States"
Answer:
Korematsu v. United States
Explanation:
The opinion shown above was issued in the Korematsu v. United States.
Korematsu v. United States was a case related to defending the petition that excluded Japanese-American citizens from the military area of the west coast during the Second World War. This occurred after the attack on Pearl Habor organized by American troops, causing a great loss to the USA and leaving the Japanese and descendants as unwanted people and enemies of the USA.
As a result, the government ordered all Japanese and Japanese descendants to leave their homes and move into internment camps (similar to concentration camps), which were places with no structure and resources necessary for the survival of these people. Because of this inhospitable environment Fred Korematsu, a descendant of Japanese, refused to go to the internment camps and claimed that this was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, that is, it was illegal. Thus began the case Korematsu v. United States.
Answer:Ogden: Defining Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Today marks the anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gibbons v. Ogden. Decided in 1824, Gibbons was the first major case in the still-developing jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of congressional power under the Commerce Clause
