The correct answer to this open question is the following.
In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to place restrictions on who electors can vote for.
I agree with this decision because voting in the Electoral College is a serious thing, and members of the college have to assume this important and serious role. That is why they are members of the Electoral College and expressed their intention to vote for the candidate they supported.
I think there would be no room for faithless electors in the US Electoral College. There is no reason for them to vote for other people if they originally pledge to vote for their candidates.
On July 6, 2020, the case of Chiafalo v. Washington was decided.
Answer:
Proclamation of 1763, proclamation declared by the British crown at the end of the French and Indian War in North America, mainly intended to conciliate the Native Americans by checking the encroachment of settlers on their lands.
The answer that best describes how the Supreme Court viewed Maryland's taxing of the national bank created after the War of 1812 would be that "<span>The Supreme Court decided Maryland had challenged the authority of federal power," since it ruled against such taxation. </span>
Answer:
issued an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, demanding that Saddam Hussein step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours, under threat of war.
Explanation:
The Gulf War was a war waged by coalition forces from 35 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait arising from oil pricing and production disputes.
Answer: America had placed an embargo on Japan due to their over achieving power and took over most of the South Pacific islands. Japan was wanting to upward/increase its oil for its war effort and saw the Pacific Fleet of the United States as its biggest threat.
