1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
FinnZ [79.3K]
2 years ago
14

Which of the following best reflects a function of the Supreme Court in Article III of the Constitution? To interpret the consti

tutionality of laws passed by Congress Answer A: To interpret the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress A To adjudicate disputes between the president and Congress Answer B: To adjudicate disputes between the president and Congress B To overturn legislation passed by the state legislatures Answer C: To overturn legislation passed by the state legislatures C To serve as the highest court of appeals
History
1 answer:
Klio2033 [76]2 years ago
8 0

The function of the Supreme Court in Article III of the Constitution is : To interpret the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress

<h3>What is  constitution?</h3>

Constitution refers to the legal document, which contains the principle and procedure by which a country is being govern. It is what guides a country in the implementation of law.

The article  III of the constitution, establishes the judiciary's structure (One Supreme Court and others inferior courts which shall be ordained by Congress), deals with its jurisdiction and its right to judicial review and defines what treason against the United States is.

Hence, the function of the Supreme Court in Article III of the Constitution is to interpret the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress

Learn more about constitution here : brainly.com/question/453546

You might be interested in
Why did the Kingdom of Israel split?
scZoUnD [109]

Throughout their history in the Promised Land, the children of Israel struggled with conflict among the tribes. The disunity went back all the way to the patriarch Jacob, who presided over a house divided. The sons of Leah and the sons of Rachel had their share of contention even in Jacob’s lifetime (Genesis 37:1-11).


The enmity among the half-brothers continued in the time of the judges. Benjamin (one of Rachel’s tribes) took up arms against the other tribes (Judges 20). Israel’s first king, Saul, was of the tribe of Benjamin. When David was crowned king—David was from the tribe of Judah (one of Leah’s tribes)—the Benjamites rebelled (2 Samuel 2–3). After a long war (2 Samuel 3:1), David succeeded in uniting all twelve tribes (5:1-5).


The frailty of the union was exposed, however, when David’s son Absalom promoted himself as the new king and drew many Israelites away from their allegiance to David (2 Samuel 15). Significantly, Absalom set up his throne in Hebron, the site of the former capital (v. 10). A later revolt was led by a man named Sheba against David and the tribe of Judah (20:1-2).


The reign of David’s son Solomon saw more unrest when one of the king’s servants, Jeroboam, rebelled. Jeroboam was on the king’s errand when he met the prophet Ahijah, who told him that God was going to give him authority over ten of the twelve tribes of Israel. God’s reason for the division of the kingdom was definitive: “Because they have forsaken me . . . and have not walked in my ways.” However, God promised that David’s dynasty would continue, albeit over a much smaller kingdom, for the sake of God’s covenant with David and for the sake of Jerusalem, God’s chosen city. When Solomon learned of the prophecy, he sought to kill Jeroboam, who fled to Egypt for sanctuary (1 Kings 11:26-40).


After Solomon’s death, his son Rehoboam was set to become the next king. Jeroboam returned from Egypt and led a group of people to confront Rehoboam with a demand for a lighter tax burden. When Rehoboam refused the demand, ten of the tribes rejected Rehoboam and David’s dynasty (1 Kings 12:16), and Ahijah’s prophecy was fulfilled. Only Judah and Benjamin remained loyal to King Rehoboam. The northern tribes crowned Jeroboam as their king. Rehoboam made plans to mount an assault on the rebel tribes, but the Lord prevented him from taking that action (vv. 21-24). Meanwhile, Jeroboam further consolidated his power by instituting a form of calf worship unique to his kingdom and declaring that pilgrimages to Jerusalem were unnecessary. Thus, the people of the northern tribes would have no contact with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.


“So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kings 12:19). The northern kingdom is called “Israel” (or sometimes “Ephraim”) in Scripture, and the southern kingdom is called “Judah.” From the divine viewpoint, the division was a judgment on not keeping God’s commands, specifically the commands prohibiting idolatry. From a human viewpoint, the division was the result of tribal discord and political unrest. The principle is that sin brings division (1 Corinthians 1:13, 11:18; James 4:1).


The good news is that God, in His mercy, has promised a reuniting of the northern and southern kingdoms. “He will raise a banner for the nations / and gather the exiles of Israel; / he will assemble the scattered people of Judah / from the four quarters of the earth. / Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, / and Judah’s enemies will be destroyed; / Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, / nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim” (Isaiah 11:12-13). When the Prince of Peace—Jesus Christ—reigns in His millennial kingdom, all hostility, jealousy, and conflict among the tribes will be put to rest.


4 0
4 years ago
Which of these would only be covered in the Florida Constitution?
ki77a [65]

Answer:

education

Explanation:

7 0
4 years ago
The goals of the american revolution were most influenced by what
liubo4ka [24]

Answer:

I may be wrong so double check but Enlightenment Philosophy

4 0
1 year ago
Read 2 more answers
Why does the code mention both civil law and law of nations
Ugo [173]

Civil law, civilian law, or Roman law is a legal system originating in Europe, intellectualized within the framework of late Roman law, and whose most prevalent feature is that its core principles are codifiedinto a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems whose intellectual framework comes from judge-made decisional law which gives precedential authority to prior court decisions on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions (doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis).[1][2]

Historically, a civil law is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Codex Justinianus, but heavily overlaid by Napoleonic, Germanic, canonical, feudal, and local practices,[3] as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legal positivism.

Conceptually, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules.[4] It holds case law to be secondary and subordinate to statutory law. When discussing civil law, one should keep in mind the conceptual difference between a statute and a codal article. The marked feature of civilian systems is that they use codes with brief text that tend to avoid factually specific scenarios.[5] Code articles deal in generalities and thus stand at odds with statutory schemes which are often very long and very detailed.

3 0
3 years ago
What action by Congress allowed President Johnson to expand the war in Vietnam? Why? What were the results?
Bogdan [553]

Answer:

During the Vietnam war, congress gave LBJ the unprecedented power of sending troops without declaring war. This allowed him to send US troops to Vietnam to support the war effort without getting completely involved in an all out war. After the war, Congress realized it should limit the president's power and they signed the war powers act that restricted the president's power to send troops to foreign countries. If the results of the war were different (if we had succeeded instead of failed) Congress may not have been so strict about signing the war powers act.

Explanation:

Hope this helps!!!!

Just try and put this in your own words

7 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why did The founding father establish a separation of church and state the constitution
    5·1 answer
  • I will make the first person who answers this brainliest!!!
    11·1 answer
  • The word "renaissance" means (rebirth, renewal, or reintroduction). The period was characterized by a renewal of interest in cla
    5·2 answers
  • Why did the united states and the soviet union distrust each other at the end of ww2 answer?
    13·1 answer
  • What was the outcome of most European revolts of the 1830s
    8·1 answer
  • Which economic idea best reflects one of Adam Smith's major beliefs?
    14·1 answer
  • At dawn, Circe sent a favourable wind to take them on their way. But Odysseus was filled with fear at what Circe had told him.
    7·1 answer
  • Party A typically gets 55 percent of the vote, while Party B typically gets 45 percent. Party B currently has control of the red
    5·1 answer
  • 11/
    11·1 answer
  • How much did the U.S. pay for the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico?
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!