1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
4vir4ik [10]
2 years ago
12

Had congress allowed six more justices onto the Supreme Court how might have this changed the balance of powers

History
2 answers:
Gnoma [55]2 years ago
6 0
Yes, but the court has given unconstitutional rulings which was proposed by former US President Franklin Roosevelt and called it Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 to add more justices
Art [367]2 years ago
6 0

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Had Congress allowed six more justices onto the Supreme Court this might have this changed the balance of powers in a more strong and powerful Supre Court.

Franklin D. Roosevelt needed more support to pass his "New Deal" program. Roosevelt needed more judges for the approval of his program. So the legislative initiative that President Roosevelt proposed was called the "court-packing plan," to increase the number of justices in the Supreme Court. The formally known as the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 consisted of granting the President power to appoint up to six justices to the Supreme Court for every member of the court who had 70 years-old.

You might be interested in
In 1942, the National Resources Planning Board noted that because of their inclusion in the Social Security Act, blacks were enj
nevsk [136]

Answer:ff

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
According to Gribkov, why was Zorin unable to answer Adalai Stevenson’s question about the missiles in Cuba
luda_lava [24]

Answer:

I want to say to you, Mr. Zorin, that I do not have your talent for obfuscation, for distortion, for confusing language, and for doubletalk. And I must confess to you that I am glad that I do not!

But if I understood what you said, you said that my position had changed, that today I was defensive because we did not have the evidence to prove our assertions, that your Government had installed long-range missiles in Cuba.

Well, let me say something to you, Mr. Ambassador—we do have the evidence. We have it, and it is clear and it is incontrovertible. And let me say something else—those weapons must be taken out of Cuba.

Next, let me say to you that, if I understood you, with a trespass on credibility that excels your best, you said that our position had changed since I spoke here the other day because of the pressures of world opinion and the majority of the United Nations. Well, let me say to you, sir, you are wrong again. We have had no pressure from anyone whatsoever. We came in here today to indicate our willingness to discuss Mr. U Thant’s proposals, and that is the only change that has taken place.

But let me also say to you, sir, that there has been a change. You—the Soviet Union has sent these weapons to Cuba. You—the Soviet Union has upset the balance of power in the world. You—the Soviet Union has created this new danger, not the United States.

And you ask with a fine show of indignation why the President did not tell Mr. Gromyko on last Thursday about our evidence, at the very time that Mr. Gromyko was blandly denying to the President that the U.S.S.R. was placing such weapons on sites in the new world.

Well, I will tell you why—because we were assembling the evidence, and perhaps it would be instructive to the world to see how a Soviet official—how far he would go in perfidy. Perhaps we wanted to know if this country faced another example of nuclear deceit like that one a year ago, when in stealth, the Soviet Union broke the nuclear test moratorium.

And while we are asking questions, let me ask you why your Government—your Foreign Minister—deliberately, cynically deceived us about the nuclear build-up in Cuba.

And, finally, the other day, Mr. Zorin, I remind you that you did not deny the existence of these weapons. Instead, we heard that they had suddenly become defensive weapons. But today again if I heard you correctly, you now say that they do not exist, or that we haven’t proved they exist, with another fine flood of rhetorical scorn.

All right, sir, let me ask you one simple question: Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R. has placed and is placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no—don’t wait for the translation—yes or no?

(The Soviet representative refused to answer.)

You can answer yes or no. You have denied they exist. I want to know if I understood you correctly. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that’s your decision. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room.

(The President called on the representative of Chile to speak, but Ambassador Stevenson continued as follows.)

I have not finished my statement. I asked you a question. I have had no reply to the question, and I will now proceed, if I may, to finish my statement.

I doubt if anyone in this room, except possibly the representative of the Soviet Union, has any doubt about the facts. But in view of his statements and the statements of the Soviet Government up until last Thursday, when Mr. Gromyko denied the existence or any intention of installing such weapons in Cuba, I am going to make a portion of the evidence available right now. If you will indulge me for a moment, we will set up an easel here in the back of the room where I hope it will be visible to everyone.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did many Americans find themselves in trouble after the Great
inysia [295]

Answer:D

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
What were the Rosenbergs convicted of? Do you think the sentence fits the crime given that they had two young boys under the age
tresset_1 [31]

Answer:

The Rosenbergs were convicted of spying on behalf of the Soviet Union.

No, I think that the sentence was too severe. The Rosenbergs' two sons were orphaned by the executions and were not adopted by any relatives.

One of the sons, Michael Meeropol, wrote The Rosenberg Letters: A Complete Edition of the Prison Correspondence of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. It recited letters exchanged between Ethel Rosenberg and her sons. In the letters, Ethel felt optimistic that she would be released because of her innocence.

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
Explain the opposing views within President Washington's Cabinet. What did he<br> ultimately decide?
Viktor [21]

Answer: explaining below

Explanation:

Okay so basically Hamilton and Jefferson really had opposing views on how they saw the future of America ... hamilton would bring forth an idea and Jefferson would be like yeah no <3 that's unconstitutional... but Washington typically leaned more with hamilton just because thats generally more where he gravitated towards in terms of being biased if that makes sense. Hope this helps explain that a bit.

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Who proposed the system of checks and balances that was included in the U.S. Constitution?
    15·1 answer
  • Who were the first Europeans to make settlements in North America?
    9·2 answers
  • Why was Texas so important to the Confederacy?
    12·2 answers
  • during the constitutional convention the great compromise was a result of arguments regarding which issue
    7·1 answer
  • Definition for berbers caravan
    8·1 answer
  • Acrostic poem for socialism
    12·1 answer
  • Citizens participated in the government of Athens by?
    10·2 answers
  • What is a province?
    7·2 answers
  • PART B: Next, think more about the four main causes of World War I. Which cause do you think had the biggest impact on starting
    7·1 answer
  • 3 facts about the death of Marie Antoinette
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!