How would you describe your personality in an online dating profile?

According to the chart, the power to tax is a concurrent power, meaning a) it belongs to the state government. b) it is a government power that is shared. c) it is less important than the power to borrow money. eliminate d) it is more important than the regulating state trade.

Mike and his wife, amanda, are arguing about his in-laws. mike doesn’t want them to visit because they fight all the time when they come to the house and he is worried about the effect that their fighting is having on mike and amanda’s children. amanda finally yells out: “what about our fighting? ” mike replies, “well, that’s different. we fight because we’re having a disagreement, they fight because they hate each other! ” this is an example of

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.