The people who are most likely to vote in the us election are those older than 18 and believe in the countries values.
(That’s the best answer I can give without being controversial)
Answer: to meet the demands of different groups to be enfranchised
Explanation:
Even though the United States was founded to be a free country, this freedom was not a reality to a lot of groups such as Black people and women, both of whom found that they could not vote in the country they called home.
The 15th and 24th Amendments aimed to remove this disenfranchisement from Black Americans by constitutionally enforcing their rights to vote and for women, the 19th Amendment took care of that. The 26th Amendment was passed to end the disenfranchisement of people within the age group of 18 - 21 who were eligible for military service but were ineligible to vote.
In several Supreme Court decisions this decade, the question of whether a constitutional attack on a statute should be considered “as applied” to the actual facts of the case before the Court or “on the face” of the statute has been a difficult preliminary issue for the Court. The issue has prompted abundant academic discussion. Recently, scholars have noted a preference within the Roberts Court for as-applied constitutional challenges. However, the cases cited as evidence for the Roberts Court’s preference for as-applied challenges all involve constitutional challenges which concede the legislative power to enact the provision but nevertheless argue for unconstitutionality because the statute intrudes upon rights or liberties protected by the Constitution. Of course, this is not the only type of constitutional challenge to a statute; some constitutional challenges attack the underlying power of the legislative branch to pass the statute in question. Modern scholarship, however, as well as the Supreme Court, has mostly ignored the difference between these two different types of constitutional challenges to statutes when discussing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In glossing over this difference, considerations which fundamentally affect whether a facial or as-applied challenge is appropriate have gone unnoticed. By clearly distinguishing between these two very different types of constitutional challenges, and the respective role of a federal court in adjudicating each of these challenges, a new perspective can be gained on the exceedingly difficult question of when a facial or as-applied challenge to a statute is appropriate. In this Article, I argue that federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged. Under the separation of powers principles enunciated in I.N.S. v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, federal courts are not free to ignore the “finely wrought” procedures described in the Constitution for the creation of federal law by “picking and choosing” constitutional applications from unconstitutional applications of the federal statute, at least when the statute has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. The separation of powers principles of I.N.S. and Clinton, which preclude a “legislative veto” or an executive “line item veto,” should similarly preclude a “judicial application veto” of a law that has been challenged as exceeding Congress’s Constitutional authority.
The answer is B
The judicial branch is the supreme court
Of course, it can't be A and C.
The only reasonable options would be B and D, but if you look in D it states "learn the rules." The logical option would be B. Why would citizens need to know the rules if they already know them?
"Responsible citizens follow state and local laws in order to..."
