1 and 3 are correct, this is due to the fact that modern technology is constantly growing and other developed nations are feeling threatened or inferior when another developed nation grows further ahead. National security has also grown global, just the threat of a foreign country developing nuclear capability is enough for another country to launch missle strikes or other acts in order to quell the threat of another nuclear capable country. 2 is not correct because industrial strategies are being shared throughout the world constantly and the safety of a country no longer stands by their standing army or navy, but by the threat of nuclear capability or a possibility of retaliation through explosive nature. Even today, most wars are done through the army holding down a line, and the navy/airforce launching long ranged missile attacks of various nature.
Answer:
Chaos would happen and one branch will always have more power over the other branch. If they are all together, what is right and what is wrong. Is too much power being used? What laws to make? What actions to make? IF for not these questions perhaps, there would have been only one branch of the government. The executive branch has immense power and can be overpowered as well, but, that does not mean it can do any foolishness it wants. That is why the judicial branch exists and it has specific power, great power, to overrule anything if it is deemed wrong or unconsitituional. The president doesn't necessarily create law either. He writes them into law and may have some power or influence to add in laws he likes or wants. The legislative branch looks over the laws and creates them. The president merely looks over it and signs it. The judical branch also has the power to overrule laws that are unjust or unconstitutional. Together, these three branches make up the government. Without each other, or to be said, as single, the nation would be no more.
Explanation:
Answer:
It has been suppressed by <em>Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).</em>
Explanation:
According to the <u>University of California v. Bakke case</u> (1978), college applicants’ race was allowed to be a factor in the admission policy, though racial quotas were ruled as impermissible.
Meanwhile, in 2003 <u>Grutter v. Bollinger</u> <u>case</u> ended with a court's decision that<em> admission policy that favors poorly represented ethnic minority groups does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, only if the policy takes other factors, such as academic excellence, into account.</em>
