Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
I believe the answer is D. Great Britain.
<span>
Industrialization spread from </span>Britain<span> to other </span>European<span> countries, including Belgium, France and Germany, and to the United States. By the mid-19th century, industrialization was well-established throughout the western part of Europe and America's northeastern region.
Hope this helped.</span>
Answer:
Cause
The GI Bill of Rights gave benefits such as paid tuition, unemployment, and low-interest loans primarily to white men
Effect
A. Inequality grew, and the middle class often did not include minorities
Explanation:
Although the GI Bill was supposed to include both African Americans and women, they often faced discrimination when seeking its benefits, because its implementation was conducted by the Veterans Administration (VA), filled with pro-segregation white men.
Women had little information about the GI Bill and faced discrimination when demanding its benefits. For example, female enrollment in colleges was mostly limited to male veterans.
African American veterans were offered vocational training rather than university courses, and loans aimed at homeownership were denied to them by the banks despite federal guaranty. Furthermore, many suburban neighborhoods banned them from buying homes. Therefore, white people concentrated in the suburbs while African Americans had to settle for the deteriorating inner cities.
These tensions were a key factor in the development of the modern Civil Rights Movement.
The correct answer for the question that is being presented above is this one: "<span>Progressives, such as Woodrow Wilson, supported financial reforms because they believed the nation’s financial system was overly controlled by bringing</span><span> all sides together on the issues of money and banking by the creation in 1913 of the Federal Reserve System, a complex business-government partnership that to this day dominates the financial world."</span>
Answer:
The Quarantine Speech was given by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on October 5, 1937 in Chicago (on the occasion of the dedication of the bridge between north and south outer Lake Shore Drive), calling for an international "quarantine" against the "epidemic of world lawlessness" by aggressive nations as an alternative to the political climate of American neutrality and non-intervention that was prevalent at the time. The speech intensified America's isolationist mood, causing protest by non-interventionists and foes to intervene. No countries were directly mentioned in the speech, although it was interpreted as referring to the Empire of Japan, the Kingdom of Italy, and Nazi Germany.[1] Roosevelt suggested the use of economic pressure, a forceful response, but less direct than outright aggression.
Public response to the speech was mixed. Famed cartoonist Percy Crosby, creator of Skippy (comic strip) and very outspoken Roosevelt critic, bought a two-page advertisement in the New York Sun to attack it.[2] In addition, it was heavily criticized by Hearst-owned newspapers and Robert R. McCormick of the Chicago Tribune, but several subsequent compendia of editorials showed overall approval in US media.[3] Roosevelt realized the impact that those witting in favor of isolationism had on the nation. He hoped that the storm isolationists' created would fade away and allow the general public to become educated and even active in international policy. [4] However, this was not the response that grew over time, in fact, it ended up intensifying isolationism views in more Americans.[5] Roosevelt even mentioned in two personal letters written on October 16, 1937, that "he was 'fighting against a public psychology which comes very close to saying 'peace at any price.'"'[6] Disappointed in how the public reacted to the speech, Roosevelt decided to take a step back with regards to his foreign policy. Even to the point of accepting an apology from Japan after the sinking of the USS Panay
Explanation:
