The notion of danger differs according to the developed perspective, however in general those situations that have effects on the planetary biological cycles are usually accepted as those that represent more danger.
Different situations of cultural, social, political and economic origin are often taken as situations of danger to human life, as these can end in great conflicts and tragedies.
Given the above, it is necessary to clarify that most of the latent hazards have an anthropic origin, the continuous increase in consumption and the forcing of productivity entails large uses of energy and large accumulations of industrial waste and toxic materials.
Also the excessive consumption of antibiotics, the mismanagement of biological wastes and waste, among others, pose risks of pandemics due to the lack of effectiveness of antibiotics.
In addition to the above problems, economic and political models do not contribute to the situation, allowing excessive accumulation and unequal distribution, scarcity and lack of access to services and necessities, while those who have access see each time more restricted their rights and privacy increasingly diminished.
Answer
The main dangers for the planet and human life in the 21st century are <em>environmental, sanitary-medicinal, social, political and economic.</em>
Three amendments were broken. The first, fourth, and the fourteenth amendments.
Ability to repay<span>. The representation of the financial </span>capacity<span> of an individual or an institution to make good on their </span>repayment<span> of a debt or a </span>loan<span>. The </span>ability to repay <span>is considered by a lender when deciding whether to give a </span>loan<span> to an individual or an institution.</span>
Answer:
a. The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Its purpose is to apply substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War. Hence, in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), Supreme Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
While in the case of Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), Supreme Court held that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997 boundaries was based on clearly erroneous findings.
b. In the case of Easley v. Cromartie, an appeal from the decision given in hunt v. Cromartie was filed in the supreme court of the United States by Easley. In hunt v. Cromartie, the court held that the legislature of North Carolina did not use the factor of race while drawing the boundaries in the twelfth congressional district,1992. It was held by the court that the legislature did not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution and no evidence to prove that legislature set its boundaries on a racial basis rather than a political basis.
In Easley v Cromartie the appeal was that drawing the boundaries for voting violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. The supreme court of the United States held that the decision of the district court is erroneous because it actually relied upon racial factors and this is not in the interest of the state.
In Shaw v. Reno the court concluded that the plan of North Carolina tried to segregate the voters on the basis of race.
