Answer:
Debra Medina claimed that nullification was possible by state laws that could neutralize federal laws. She based her claim on the 10th Amendment, which establishes that any power not constitutionally granted to the federal government can be held by the states.
Explanation:
The Constitution doesn´t enable the nullification of federal laws by the states, and several academics have stated that it could be illegal since the Supremacy Clause pronounces federal laws as the supreme national law. So nullification would overthrow the constitutional interpretation held for 200 years.
Let us also remember that Gov. Rick Perry, who supported nullification, had already skipped the nullification issue by starting a debate about secession. This debate is a reminder of the time when state rejection of racial integration had to be stopped by the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Answer:
for supporting industry over the interests of farmers
Explanation:
In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional. ... On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
<span>Two important values a social worker should possess are, integrity and human relationship skills. I say integrity because a social worker needs to be trust worthy no matter the case. I also said human relationship skills, meaning social workers need to recognize the importance of human relationships and know how to relate and bond with people from every demographic.</span>
