You probably shouldn’t post ur school on here
Answer: C. Less potential for abuse of power
Explanation:
With a Federal government, power is divided between the Federal government and the state government. Even though the Federal government has power over the state government, there are certain powers that belongs to the state government alone that the Federal government cannot infringe upon unless the state government acts against the Constitution of the nation.
This division of powers reduces the potential for abuse of power because neither government has the absolute power necessary to act in an abusive way to its citizens.
Answer:
1. de jure segregation
2. de facto segregation
Explanation:
Racial segregation occurs when opportunities, services, amenities, facilities, other things like employment, housing, education, transportation, and medical care are segregated according to races. Racial segregation be de jure segregation or de facto segregation.
De jure segregation occurs when a group of people are separated legally based on their race in accordance to the law of the land which is being enforced. De jure is latin word which means "according to law".
On the other hand, de facto segregation occur when people are separated because of personal choice, actual circumstance or factual happenings. This means people are not separated legally but they just chose to be separated themselves. The facto is latin word which implies "in fact"'
Therefore, someone who experienced racial segregation of public schools was subjected to de facto segregation, while someone who currently lives in an inner city neighborhood that is populated only by racial minorities is subjected to dej jure segregation.
The Great Compromise solved the problem of representation in Congress during the Constitutional Convention. There were two competing plans to decide representation in Congress. The first, the Virginia Plan, was to provide Congressional representation according to a state's population.
Answer:
A)
Explanation:
The main difference between these two terms is that a concurring opinion agrees with the majority decision, but for different legal reasons, while a dissenting opinion explains why one or more justices disagree with the majority. Each of which tends to ocurr often in court cases where various judges analyze and pass judgment of another judges decision on a specific case. With a concurring opinion most, if not all, judges agree with the decision that has been made but tend to give different reasons as to why they believe the decision was justified.
