The answer is C. Goal and Dream
Answer:
- The court should look to the intention of the founders.
Explanation:
Originalism is associated with the legal doctrine that believes in interpreting or determining the meaning of the words, phrases, or statements mentioned in the Constitution in context of 'the intention of the founders or authors' for ratification of such a clause or law in the Constitution. The originalist philosophy says that the constitution is required to be interpreted on the basis of initial/original understanding or intent of the founders instead of interpreting it in the present context. Therefore, the court should determine the meaning of the constitutional phrase on this philosophy and 'look to the intention of the founders'.
Here's how I see it. For a long time throughout many generations, women and kids didn't have rights. It was always the man of the house who brought home the bacon and controlled the house. Slowly but surely women started to get rights (like voting, being able to do more jobs and generally more things, and even though there is still a wage gap they got payed more over time), but kids didn't start having a voice until, let's say, until 3 generations ago. With advances in technology, kids started to have more of a voice and more of a role in general. A long time ago kids were factory workers as well, which is kinda out of place to put here but I just remembered so the more you know I guess. Anyways, kids started getting more educated, getting more legal rights, and with technology, much more of a voice. Kids are on social media now, child actors (like Millie Bobby Brown) are fighting for women's rights and are helping to fund charities. Kids can create youtube channels, they can create Instagram accounts, they can do anything with technological advancements today. Kids can do basically anything adults can. My mom, who is a baby boomer, talked about the fact that when she was a kid, kids were to be seen, not to be heard. Kids weren't really acknowledged by adults and were often disregarded as idiots until they became legal adults, but now a 13 year-old could have an intellectual conversation about politics with a 50 year old. So, to answer your question, yes, the role of a child has been one of the greatest shifts over time. The way it effects families can be for the better or for worse. I think it's mostly for the better. Kids can speak out now, they can learn more and do more. They have the ability to become an adults as a child, if that makes any sense. Kids are evolving now and will be for forever. I think that because kids have a voice now more than ever, it's a good thing. Kids should be smart and should be heard, and the fact that some kids are able to invent things or challenge adults to trying new things or having intellectual conversations is amazing!!! I hope this helped, sorry that this question is 2 weeks old, brainy just suggested it to me. Good luck with school!
The phrase that reasonably represents the purpose of Nazario’s editorial is "to persuade readers the United States should change its refugee policy for Central America"The Nazario editorial is regarding an article written by Sonia Nazario where she voices her apprehension about the immigration policy of America towards Central America and why those policies should be reviewed and modified.
