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
uysha [10]
2 years ago
10

This passage is most likely from which Supreme Court case?

History
1 answer:
alukav5142 [94]2 years ago
8 0

The aforementioned passage is an extract from the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, which took place in 1954.

<h3>What is the significance of Brown v. Board of Education?</h3>

The verdict given by Supreme Court in its landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in the year 1954 stated that the racial segregation for students' admission in public school is completely unconstitutional.

Hence, option A holds states about Brown v. Board of Education.

Learn more about Brown v. Board of Education here:

brainly.com/question/14637388

#SPJ1

You might be interested in
Reasons against getting rid of the Electoral college
VARVARA [1.3K]

Here's an excerpt from https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005330

Pro 1 : The Founding Fathers enshrined the Electoral College in the Constitution b/c they thought it was the best method to choose the president. Using electors instead of the popular vote was intended to safeguard against uninformed/uneducated voters by putting the final decision in the hands of electors most likely to have the info. necessary to make the best decision; to stop states w/ larger pops. from having undue influence; & to compromise between electing the president by popular vote & letting Congress choose. According to Alexander Hamilton, the Electoral College is if "not perfect, it's at least excellent," b/c it ensured "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who isn't in an eminent degree endowed w/ the requisite qualifications." The Founders wanted to balance the will of the ppl against the risk of "tyranny of the majority," in which the voices of the masses can drown out minority interests.

Con 1 : The reasons for which they created the Electoral College are no longer relevant. Modern technology allows voters to get info. to make informed decisions in a way that couldn't have been foreseen by them. Also, while Alexander Hamilton in 1788 saw the electors as being "free from any sinister bias," members of the Electoral College are now selected by the parties & expected to vote along party lines regardless of their own opinions about candidates. Just as several voting laws that limited direct democracy in the Constitution have been modified/discarded thru-out history, so should the Electoral College. As a result of Constitutional amendments, women & former slaves were given the right to vote, & Senators, once appointed by state legislatures, are now elected by popular vote. The vice presidency was once awarded to the runner up in electoral votes, but was changed over time to reflect the reality of elections.

Pro 2 : The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the POTUS. If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily-populated areas or specific regions. To win, candidates need electoral votes from multiple regions & therefore they build campaign platforms w/ a national focus, meaning that the winner will actually be serving the needs of the entire country. W/o the electoral college, groups such as IA farmers & OH factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas w/ higher pop. densities, leaving rural areas & small towns marginalized.  

Con 2 : The Electoral College gives too much power to "swing states" & lets the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states. The 2 main parties can count on winning the electoral votes in certain states, such as CA for the Dem. Party & IN for the Rep. Party, w/o worrying about the actual popular vote totals. B/c of the Electoral College, presidential candidates only need to look to a limited # of states that can swing 1 way or the other. A Nov. 6, 2016 episode of PBS NewsHour revealed that "Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton have made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits, nearly 2/3 took place in the 4 battlegrounds w/ the most electoral votes — FL, PA, OH, & NC."

Pro 3 : The Electoral College guarantees certainty to the outcome of the election. If the election were based on popular vote, it would be possible for a candidate to receive the highest # of popular votes w/o actually obtaining a majority. This happened w/ President Nixon in 1968 & President Clinton in 1992, when both men won the most electoral votes while receiving just 43% of the popular vote. The existence of the Electoral College precluded calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections. The electoral process can also create a larger mandate to give the president more credibility; for example, President Obama received 51.3% of the popular vote in 2012 but 61.7% of the electoral votes. In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only 5 times. This proves the system is working.  

Con 3 : The Electoral College ignores the will of the people. There are over 300 million people in the US, but just 538 people decide who'll be president. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than 1 million votes, yet still lost the election on electoral votes. Even President Donald Trump, who benefitted from the system, stated after the election that he believes presidents should be chosen by popular vote: "I would rather see it where you went w/ simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes & somebody else gets 90 million votes & you win." Just as in 2000 when George W. Bush received fewer nationwide popular votes than Al Gore, Donald Trump will serve as the POTUS despite being supported by fewer Americans than his opponent.

5 0
3 years ago
How do leaders in both chambers of Congress exert their power?
ale4655 [162]

Answer:

The floor leaders and whips of each party are elected by a majority vote of all the senators of their party assembled in a conference or, as it sometimes is called, a caucus. The practice has been to choose the leader for a two-year term at the beginning of each Congress.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Why does demand become more elastic over time?
stich3 [128]
Demand tends to be more price elastic, the longer that we allow consumers to respond to a price change by varying their purchasing decisions.
7 0
4 years ago
Why is monopolistic competition inefficient?
jeyben [28]
<span>A monopolistically competitive market is productively inefficient market structure because marginal cost is less than price in the long run.  </span>
4 0
3 years ago
The English colonized North America to gain wealth. True False
insens350 [35]

Answer:

I am not sure but I think the correct answer is true.

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • 14. Which factor was the greatest advantage of the United States in World War II?
    11·2 answers
  • What actions did Roosevelt take that pushed Japan to join the Axis Powers?
    10·1 answer
  • How did the status of Jews change in the late 18th and 19th centuries?
    10·1 answer
  • How did the United States change the Japanese government after World War II? *
    15·2 answers
  • Why was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki so controversial
    5·2 answers
  • The loss of funds for private investment due to government borrowing is known as___.
    5·2 answers
  • 2. What was the major difficulty with trade-in in ancient Greece?
    13·2 answers
  • The Green Corn Rebellion was associated with which political party in Oklahoma?
    15·2 answers
  • Page 1:
    11·1 answer
  • Match the man with his accomplishment. 1. sailed four ships to India Prince Henry 2. traveled to China Vasco da Gama 3. began a
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!