Answer:
True.
Explanation:
True, The National Labor Relations Board would find it to be unfair labor practice if an employer were caught threatening physical force or violence toward employees in order to influence votes, but it would be permissible for a union representative to display such behavior"
What is National Labor Relations Board ?With regard to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices, the National Labor Relations Board, an independent agency of the US federal government, is responsible for upholding US labor law.
The National Labor Relations Board is freestanding federal agency that protects the rights of non-union employees in the private sector to band together as to raise wages and working conditions.
The NLRB is in charge of defending workers against unfair labor practices that interfere with their rights to band together to improve their pay and working conditions, to form a union and engage in collective bargaining, as well as other types of protected concerted activity.
To learn more about National Labor Relations Board
https://brainly.com/question/7202765
#SPJ2
Suppose Barry's wife challenged the legality of the admitted evidence showing that Lynette paid Barry. If Barry's wife claimed her bank account was private and the police had no right to look into it, why couldn't she have the bank account evidence suppressed? a. She didn't have the fundamental right b. She had no justification c. She wouldn't have standing to do so d. She wouldn't have jurisdiction to do so
Answer:
c. She wouldn't have standing to do so
Explanation:
Barry’s wife challenged the legality of the admitted evidence showing that Lynette paid Barry. She claimed her bank account was private and the police had no right to look into it. She couldn't have the bank account evidence suppressed because she doesn’t have the standing to do so.
This is because though Banks have to protect personal and banking related information they are usually made available for Government agencies under special circumstances.
The right of due process is best described as the right of
In 1966, how did the United States compare with other countries in emergency care?
the United States lagged well behind other countries
the United States led the world in short transportation time
the USSR was well ahead of the United States with providing emergency care in 7 minutes
politicians in the U.S. began realizing that inadequate emergency affected everyone
Answer: I believe it is B and C
In 1966, the United States: - "the United States lagged well behind other countries" in emergency care.
What happened during this timeDuring this time, the United States faced challenges in the provision of emergency care and was not at the forefront compared to some other countries in this regard.
This means that, in terms of emergency medical services and response times, the United States was not as advanced or efficient as some other nations. The U.S. was not leading the world in this aspect, and there was a recognition that improvements were needed to enhance the effectiveness of emergency care services within the country.
Read more on emergency care here https://brainly.com/question/28335200
#SPJ3
One night, Alvin entered a convenience store intending to rob it. When he entered, he shoved a gun in the store clerk’s face and demanded money. Unbeknownst to Alvin, the store clerk had a loaded gun under the cash register. At a moment when Alvin was distracted and looking out the window, the store clerk pulled the weapon and fired a gunshot in an attempt to scare Alvin. Unfortunately, the gunshot hit one of the customers in the store. Which of the following is true?a. Alvin is likely guilty of the customer’s death under the agency theory of felony murder.
b. Alvin is likely guilty of depraved heart murder.
c. Alvin is likely guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
d. Alvin is likely guilty under the proximate cause theory of felony murder.
Answer:
The answer is D I think.
Explanation:
Proposed bills go through committees of congress members, when the proposed bill becomes a law?
Answer:
If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.
Explanation:
Clucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucks
Answer:
yoo clucker https://brainly.com/question/16073730
Explanation:
Answer:
Indeed. The Clucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucksClucking blucks
Explanation:
Might be time to cut down on sugar.
Describe the process of the selection of federal judges
Answer:
Federal judges are judges who serve in a federal court. The term refers both to the Article III federal judges and to Article I federal judges, who serve as magistrate and bankruptcy judges, and in other Article III tribunals.
Federal judges are nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The various steps to the process is given below:
The president nominates an candidate for a judicial seat.The candidate fills out a questionnaire which is reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing with the candidate, interviewing he or her about things like their judicial philosophy, past rulings or opinions, and ideas about certain areas of Law;As part of this process, the committee sends a blue slip to senators from the home state in which the judicial election was received, allowing them to indicate whether or not they approve of the candidate4. After the hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to approve or return the candidate;
If approved, the candidate is voted on by the full Senate.If the Committee votes to return the candidate to the president, the president has the opportunity to re-nominate the individual.5. The Senate holds a vote on the candidate.
If the Senate confirms the nomination, the nominee receives a commission to serve a lifelong position as a Federal Judge.If the Senate does not confirm the nomination, that candidate does not become a judge.Cheers!
Answer:
Explained Below
Explanation:
Federal judges serve at Supreme Court, court of appeals and district courts. They are nominated by the President of United States after the confirmation by Senate. They can serve lifetime and cannot be removed as long as they exhibit good conduct upholding the values enshrined in the Constitution.
Steps to appoint Federal Judges:
1) The candidate is nominated for the judicial seat by President.
2) The nominee is required to fill a questionnaire which is then reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
3) Post reviewing of the nomination, The Senate Judiciary Committee calls for a hearing. The nominee is then questioned about their judicial philosophy or opinions.
4) The Senate Judiciary Committee then votes for approval or rejection of the nominee.
5) If the Senate confirms the nomination, the nominee is then appointed as a federal judge for a lifelong term.
An increase in government spending with no change in taxes leads to a
Answer:
higher interest rate
Explanation:
Government spending refers to money spent by the government on the purchase of goods and provision of services including education, healthcare, public consumption, and public investment, etc.
Government spending can be financed by government borrowing or taxes. So, an increase in government spending with no change in taxes leads to a higher interest rate.
The total interest on an amount depends on the principal sum, the interest rate, and the time for which the amount has been lent, deposited, or borrowed.
Final answer:
An increase in government spending with no change in taxes leads to a budget deficit. This is because the government is increasing its expenditures without increasing its revenue, which means it will have to borrow funds or use reserves. The result is increased public debt or depletion of government savings.
Explanation:
This concept is a fundamental topic in economics, specifically in the study of fiscal policy. When the government decides to spend more without altering its tax income, it is effectively injecting more money into the economy, potentially increasing aggregate demand and possibly stimulating economic growth. This action is based on the Keynesian economic theory, which posits that government spending can influence the overall economic output.
The multiplier effect suggests that this injection of spending can lead to a more than proportional increase in income and output due to the cycles of spending that the initial government expenditure stimulates. Conversely, the government's borrowing to finance the deficit can lead to higher interest rates, crowding out private investment and potentially dampening the stimulus effect. In addition, if the spending is not targeted or efficient, it may result in increased inflation without a commensurate increase in output.
Explain consequences of interfering with the right to vote on the rule of law.
A.
It creates an unequal application of the law to all citizens.
B.
It creates a misinterpretation in understanding the Constitution.
C.
It prevents government authority from applying legitimate power.
D.
It prevents separation of powers among government branches.
Answer:
A.
It creates an unequal application of the law to all citizens.
Explanation:
study island