Correct answer: on the basis of the age of sitting judges.
Context/explanation:
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was eager to implement his New Deal programs as an antidote to the Great Depression. However, the US Supreme Court had already ruled that some provisions of the New Deal were unconstitutional, because they took too much power into the hands of the federal government, especially the executive branch of the federal government. So, riding the momentum of his landslide reelection victory in 1936, in February of 1937, FDR proposed a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges. The plan offered to provide full pay to justices over age 70 who would retire. If the older justices didn't retire, assistant justices (with full voting rights) would be appointed to sit with those existing justices. This was a way FDR hoped to give the court a liberal majority that would side with his programs.
As it turned out, before FDR's proposal came up for a vote in Congress, two of the sitting justices came over to his side of the argument, and the Supreme Court narrowly approved as constitutional both the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act. So his plan (which failed in the US Senate) became unnecessary to his purposes.
Roosevelt's "court-packing" scheme was unpopular. It was seen as an attempt to take away the independence of the judicial branch of government.
Determination , she works hard to achieve results
Answer: A. two; majority of popular vote
Explanation:
I am unsure as to what state is being referred to but generally speaking, governors in the United States can only serve two consecutive terms and have to be elected by majority vote.
This ensures that the person that is most supported by the people of the state will be put in charge of the affairs of the state but also ensures that they will not be there so long that they will impede the positive change that can come with the different perspective of another governor.
The Kulaks were wealthy farmers in the Soviet Union. Colllectivization meant the collection of private goods, especially land, and handing them over to the state so that they are governed by the whole society.
Collectivisation would mean that the Kulaks would be deprived of their goods, so they naturally opposed it.
For this item and the choices we are given, I go with nonresponse. Thus, the answer is letter B. This process of surveying is one of the best there is; however, it faces the disadvantage that not every owner of the homes who have chosen may be kind enough to lend you some of their time to answer the questions.
