Answer:
4.2 million
Explanation:
This is such a weird question lol
Gatekeeping is both decreasing and increasing at it's own specific rate due to political democracy.
Answer:
b. Being confirmed by the Senate
Explanation:
Regarding the selection process for all federal judges, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states the following:
<em>... and he </em><em>(The President) shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint</em><em> ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, </em><em>judges</em><em> </em><em>of the Supreme Court</em><em>, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.</em>
Therefore, in order for a person to become a federal judge, they first have to be appointed by the President (who has to take into account the Senate's advice), and then they have to be confirmed by the Senate. This selection process is a clear example of how the Checks and Balances system work in the U.S., in which each branch of the government has the power to oversee, check and limit the other branches.
Answer:
What follows is a bill of indictment. Several of these items end up in the Bill of Rights. Others are addressed by the form of the government established—first by the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately by the Constitution.
The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: “First comes rights, then comes government.” According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) the protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights—or its systematic violation of rights—can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) at least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.
At the Founding, these ideas were considered so true as to be self-evident. However, today the idea of natural rights is obscure and controversial. Oftentimes, when the idea comes up, it is deemed to be archaic. Moreover, the discussion by many of natural rights, as reflected in the Declaration’s claim that such rights “are endowed by their Creator,” leads many to characterize natural rights as religiously based rather than secular. As I explain in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, I believe his is a mistake.
