Suppose that a person was aware of some corruption that was occurring in the government agency in which she or he worked. What should a person in this situation do? Would it be plausible to be a whistle-blower? What are the possible implications for reporting the corruption? Is it honest and ethical to engage in whistle-blowing? If this type of corruption was not reported, would ignoring the situation be indicative of honest and ethical behavior on the part of the person who was aware of the situation at hand? Explain

Ignoring the situation is the easy way out,

but exposing the corruption in the government is the right thing to do.

If there's duplicity, it should be restrained. Being a whistle-blower alerts others to what is going on, but it's safe to be discreet. It saves people from getting screwed over, and or put in danger. Wrong doings should always get exposed.

according to classical republican political theory, which democratic republics would function best?

a.   small republics, with people who had similar interests

b.   large republics, with people who had competing interests

c.   republics made up entirely of landowners

d.   republics made up entirely of servants

jacksonian era promoted strength of the presidency and executive branch at the expense of congress. it also sought to broaden the public's participation in government. the jacksonian's demanded to have elected judges, instead of appointed judges, and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. hope this ! if you did find it would you mind giving me brainliest? : )