Answer:
It would be Seperation of powers
Explanation:
Separation of powers, division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation, it has been argued, limits the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering of laws.
Hope this helps!
E. This act substantially lowered the price of tea sold in the colonies.
Answer:
Containment Policy
Explanation:
Under the policy of containment, developed at the beginning of the Cold War, the United States' primary foreign policy goal was to stop the spread of Soviet influenced communism.
Vietnam was, as its core, a war to stop communism from spreading.
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
Answer:
Noble class
Explanation:
Historically, in medieval Europe, the system that was in use was the feudal system and it had three distinct social classes which were:
- A king
- A noble class
- Peasant class
I would like to be part of the noble class which includes nobles, priests, and princes. The noble class rented out their lands to peasants and the King was the one who owned all lands but gave out lands to his nobles for their use.
Being a king would sound like a tempting proposition but personally, I do not think I am cut out for being a King and ruling over a kingdom, so being a noble is the next best thing because I'm just part of the ruling class who rules over the commoners. Moreso, the word 'nobility' in medieval Europe also included members of the society who were in leadership positions because of their wealth, political position or specialized training.
