Correct answer: Creating the Environmental Protection Agency
Explanation/detail:
The formal recognition of China and Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) were <u>foreign</u> policy initiatives (not domestic).
As to interest rates, during the Nixon presidency, the Federal Reserve chairman, Arthur Burns, had begun raising interest rates. In 1971, President Nixon exerted pressure on Burns and "the Fed" to keep interest rates down, but that only led to a decade of high inflation that caused other economic problems. So that was not a success for Nixon.
<u>About the Environmental Protection Agency</u>
President Nixon signed an executive order establishing the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Subsequent committee hearings in the House of Representatives and the Senate ratified Nixon's order for the creation of the agency.
Environmental issues had been gaining much attention during the 1960s, and the need for oversight became clear. As Lily Rothman reported in a TIME magazine article:
- <em>An oil spill off the California coast in 1969 coated 400 square miles with slime and killed hundreds of birds. Scientists announced that auto exhaust was at high enough levels in some places that it could cause birth defects. The city of St. Louis smelled, as one resident put it, “like an old-fashioned drugstore on fire.”</em>
<em>- </em>"Here's Why the Environmental Protection Agency Was Created," <em>TIME, </em>March 22, 2017
Nixon's administration felt it necessary to take action to address pollution problems in the American environment.
A "Formal Amendment" is one that actually adds to or changes the US Constitution. It is ratified by the states and becomes law.
An "informal amendment"is a change to the meaning or interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. There is no real informal way to change the Constitution, and it's not an actual change to the wording of the Constitution; rather, it's the way we perceive the Constitution that changes.
The one that comes to mind is the equal rights amendment (1972) - which prohibits the inequality of men and women. Opponents say that the amendment is no longer needed, as the issues
Answer:
Explanation:
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.[2][3]
Between January 2012 and February 2014, plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee filed federal district court cases that culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges. After all district courts ruled for the plaintiffs, the rulings were appealed to the Sixth Circuit. In November 2014, following a series of appeals court rulings that year from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such bans to be constitutional.[4] This created a split between circuits and led to a Supreme Court review.
Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.[5] This established same-sex marriage throughout the United States and its territories. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out,[6] and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.[7]
Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by law, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.[3]