"The president may be convinced that a piece of legislation is unwise. But his judgment as to its un-wisdom is not a legal reason for his declining to execute it. (It may be a reason to veto it, and one of the objections to signing statements is that they are vetoes not subject to override.) And the president may have a definite view as to what the legislation means, and that view might include conclusions as to its constitutionality, but his is not the view that counts. He may be the commander in chief, but he is not the interpreter in chief." -Stanley Fish, "Who's Afraid of Presidential Signing Statements?" Source: New York Times Which of the following statements best summarizes Fish’s argument?a. The president should not execute laws he or she deems unconstitutionalb. Signing statements provide legal reasons for the president to decline to execute lawsc. Vetoes should be replaced with signing statements, since they are not subject to overrided. Signing statements go beyond the president’s expressed constitutional powers

Signing statements go beyond the president’s expressed constitutional powers

Explanation:

A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law.

Presidents use signing statements to explain to the public why they endorse a bill and what the President understands to be its likely effect.   However,  the President can not cherry-pick the parts of a duly enacted law that the President will choose to follow, or an attempt unilaterally to redefine what the law is after its enactment. Therefore, Fish's argument is valid that signing statements go beyond the president’s expressed constitutional powers.

- "ethical issues. deception – the participants actually believed they were shocking a real person and were unaware the learner was a confederate of milgram's. however, milgram argued that “illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths.” "

- "milgram's work was conducted in the early 1960s before the current.the studies ignited a debate about the ethical treatment of participants. what appear to be dangerous, if not deadly, electric shocks and the by today's ethical standards, many questions about the research have gone unanswered."