Indra nooyi became the ceo of pepsico despite what obstacle? a. in america, foreign-born nationals cannot run large companies. b. in 2010, only three-percent of fortune 500 companies were headed by women. c. she was accused of tax evasion early on in her career. d. her degree from yale was fraudulent and she had to return to school.

B.

in 2010, only three-percent of Fortune 500 companies were headed by women.

Just got it right

- "the civil rights movements"

- "following the american civil war and abolition of slavery, the united states entered a period known as reconstruction, during which black americans continued to suffer from disenfranchisement, racial segregation, and economic oppression. beginning in the early 1950's, black americans launched a series of major campaigns of civil resistance, emphasizing the need for nonviolent protests and civil disobedience."

"such as the montgomery bus boycott of 1955-56, a campaign launched by rosa parks against the policy of racial segregation of the public transit system in alabama. “sit-ins” became popular across the american south, particularly in greensboro, north carolina, increase national sentiment."

- "the counterculture movement"

- "counterculture began to develop in the united states following the rise of conformity in american culture during the 1950s. by 1963, youth, particularly those of the white middle class, began rejecting the cultural standards and normality of their parents, opting for progressive attitudes instead. the movement gained momentum as the civil rights movement became increasingly successful and as the u.s. military intervention of vietnam began to take a negative turn."

"hippie counterculture moved further into popular culture following the summer of love in 1967 when thousands of people came together in the haight-ashbury neighborhood of san francisco. along with greenwich village in new york city, haight-ashbury became a hub for the counterculture movement."

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is