Answer:
The correct answers are A, D and E. The major topics contained in Washington’s constitution are citizen's rights, government structure and government responsibilities.
Explanation:
The current Constitution of Washington entered into force in 1889, created prior to the elevation of Washington to the status of state. The Legislative Power of Washington can propose amendments to the Constitution, and to be approved, they need to receive at least two thirds of the votes of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the state, and then, two thirds of the votes of the electorate of the state. Washington, through a referendum. Amendments can also be made through constitutional conventions, which are special political meetings. The amendments made in this way need to be approved by at least 51% of each House of Legislative Power, and then, by at least 60% of the state's electoral population, in a referendum.
Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting. . . .
Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a far more subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. . . . A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court’s opinion in this case. . . .
yes i copy and pasted but this is your answer
They were 18 years old. (2004)
the last sentence is the one I think
