The conclusion that is supported by the preamble of the Declaration of Independence is that a. Governments exist to protect the people who created them.
<h3>What is the Declaration of Independence?</h3>
This is the document that officially declared that the British would no longer be the governing country of the American colonies and that the colonies were instead declaring independence.
The preamble to the Declaration declared how governments should exist to protect the rights of the people who created them and that when a government can no longer do this, it is not legitimate.
Options for this question include:
- a.Governments exist to protect the people who created them.
- b. it sometimes becomes necessary for one people to separate from another.
- c. governments should not be overthrown for light and trivial reasons.
- d. those who abolish their government are accountable to mankind for their action.
Find out more on the Declaration of Independence at brainly.com/question/1819326
#SPJ1
Answer:
Should be Scottish
mark me Brainlyest pls :(
Explanation:
Answer:
the queen of England granted exclusive right to east india company in 1600
Answer:
Bringing in more people to make a product
Explanation:
Apex
Answer: Appointing judges to the court.
Explanation: Firstly, enforcing a law doesn’t really limit the power of the judicial branch because they can simply strike down the law if it’s unconstitutional. Secondly, the President does not have the power to approve judicial nominations. That is only the Senate’s job. The President can appoint or nominate them, but the Senate is the one who approves.
Also, vetoing laws doesn’t limit the Judicial Branch’s power really in any way. Now, the correct answer is: Appointing judges / justices to the courts. This is because this power can not be limited at all by the judicial branch, only by congress. The Senate can deny the confirmation / appointment of a President’s appointee, and the Congress can also impeach that appointee later on for committed high crimes. The Judicial Branch can’t do any of that. The President can limit the Judiciary’s power by appointing judges that will go against any potential agenda of the Judicial Branch. For instance, if there happens to be liberal Supreme Court, whereas a majority of the members of the Supreme Court identify as liberal or were appointed by a Democratic President, a Republican President may want to nominate / appoint a conservative Justice or Justices to cancel out their majority and re-take the majority of the court. Honestly, this was a poorly worded question (not your fault at all, but the person who wrote it) because this doesn’t limit the power of the Judicial Branch in terms of its constitutional structure and powers, it merely limits and restricts the narrative or agenda of the members of the branch. Anyway, your answer is B: Appointing judges to the court.
