Answer: This is an example of a Slippery Slope.
Welcome, Brainlest
Explanation:
"You are only opposed to welfare reform because you are rich."
Religious freedom is the freedom to develop and live according to religious beliefs at the same time it does not interfere with the same freedom of others.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 determined that the Government must not burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, only if the burden was necessary for the government interest.
It protects religious freedom more than the Free Exercise Clause because the Clause does not protect people from the government’s burden, it only demands religious neutral law, which eventually can be a burden a religion.
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.
The <em>place </em>where water comes from <em>when it rains</em> is:
- <u>A. Water comes from the condensation of water vapor in the clouds when it rains.</u>
<u />
According to the given question, we are asked to state the <em>place </em>where water comes from <em>when it rains</em> and how it affects the distribution of rain around the area and surrounding places.
As a result of this, we can see that condensation occurs when there is an accumulation of water vapor in the clouds and then the water vapor would be converted to rain and when the<em> clouds get heavy</em>, they pour down as rain.
Therefore, the correct answer is option A
Read more here:
brainly.com/question/964555
