Answer:
Explanation:
Why is Marbury v. Madison important? Marbury v. Madison is important because it established the power of judicial review for the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts with respect to the Constitution and eventually for parallel state courts with respect to state constitutions.
Answer:
Russia
Explanation:
Czar Nicholas II became the ruler of Russia in 1894. However, following his incompetence and heavy losses in the wars he entered in his bid to maintain autocracy such as the Russo-Japanese war in 1905.
The effect led to many things in Russia, such as a scarcity of food, striking of labors, the level of poverty also increased tremendously and the soldiers were tired of unsuccessful war.
He was later removed from his position in 1914.
The answer is c because having control over light in homes made a big difference. .
Answer: Appointing judges to the court.
Explanation: Firstly, enforcing a law doesn’t really limit the power of the judicial branch because they can simply strike down the law if it’s unconstitutional. Secondly, the President does not have the power to approve judicial nominations. That is only the Senate’s job. The President can appoint or nominate them, but the Senate is the one who approves.
Also, vetoing laws doesn’t limit the Judicial Branch’s power really in any way. Now, the correct answer is: Appointing judges / justices to the courts. This is because this power can not be limited at all by the judicial branch, only by congress. The Senate can deny the confirmation / appointment of a President’s appointee, and the Congress can also impeach that appointee later on for committed high crimes. The Judicial Branch can’t do any of that. The President can limit the Judiciary’s power by appointing judges that will go against any potential agenda of the Judicial Branch. For instance, if there happens to be liberal Supreme Court, whereas a majority of the members of the Supreme Court identify as liberal or were appointed by a Democratic President, a Republican President may want to nominate / appoint a conservative Justice or Justices to cancel out their majority and re-take the majority of the court. Honestly, this was a poorly worded question (not your fault at all, but the person who wrote it) because this doesn’t limit the power of the Judicial Branch in terms of its constitutional structure and powers, it merely limits and restricts the narrative or agenda of the members of the branch. Anyway, your answer is B: Appointing judges to the court.
