To answer your first question, there are a lot of positive things about South Africa since the end of Apartheid. The most obvious being that races from all colors have access to better education and have an equal chance at getting work. There has been massive spending on infrastructure, making South Africa the most developed country on the African continent, including the building of speed trains, upgrading of airports, freeways, and hundreds of thousands of new homes for previously disadvantaged communities. The country went through an economic boom period since 2000, and because of good economic policies that govern our banks, South Africa did not suffer as badly as Europe or the US during the recession of 2008-2009, although there were also a lot of jobs lost.
<span>For the second question.</span>
<span>There are many, reasons why there are still problems 15 years after Apartheid. You have to keep in mind that there was a lot of damage done during the 40 years of apartheid, because of the separate development of black communities and white communities. But the country shows signs of improvement. Crime is one of our main concerns and especially aggravated crime. Although it does not affect tourists as much. The biggest reasons that there are still problems, is problems that are true for all African countries, and that is corrupt leaders that can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar (meaning that they only making themselves rich from taxpayers money, instead of delivering services). The other reason is the communist mentality of a lot of leaders. There are not enough taxpayers to cater for all the unemployed people. But like I said, there are many, many reasons</span>
<span>For the third ones.</span>
<span>I think the US should pay attention to what happens in South Africa, to pressure South African leaders not to follow corrupt policies. </span>
For the last one.
<span>The legacy of racism in the US has a lot of similarities, but also a lot of differences. Remember that in South Africa, it was a minority government that used violence, intimidation to suppress a majority. It was also during the Cold War, and the South African government was against the communist policies of the black politicians. </span>
<span>In the US, it was a white majority government that used to suppress a minority, but usually through exclusion and discrimination. Unfortunately, racism is prevalent all over the world, especially in Australia, Germany, and Britain.
</span>That's the end of my very long answer.
Answer:Localized economies are less reliant on multinational corporations for their essential goods.
THE ANSWER IS A
Explanation:
Answer:
I believe it would be C.
Explanation:
Hope this helps! Brainliest is appreciated :)
Congress and the Judiciary Act of 1789<span>
When the First Congress turned to the organization of the judicial branch, much of the debate centered on whether to establish lower federal courts or to rely on existing state courts to exercise federal jurisdiction. Advocates of a strong central government thought a national system of federal courts was an essential requirement for energetic government. Other members of Congress, recalling the colonial experience under British rule, thought that justice was best served by courts tied to local communities. Those who were suspicious of the concentration of national power wanted to grant state courts authority to hear all cases involving federal law or to limit local federal courts to admiralty and maritime law. The judiciary act approved in September 1789 established a federal court system with broad jurisdiction, but the act reserved a significant role for state courts and guaranteed that the diversity of legal traditions throughout the country would be recognized in the local federal courts.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 established three types of federal courts. The Supreme Court, with a chief justice and five associate justices, would meet twice a year in the nation’s capital and hear appeals from lower federal courts and from the state supreme courts. The Supreme Court would also exercise the limited original jurisdiction defined by the Constitution. In each state and in Kentucky and Maine (then parts of other states), a district court with a single judge would have exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving admiralty and maritime law and conduct trials of minor federal crimes. The district courts shared with the state courts jurisdiction over small suits brought by the United States.
The most important federal cases would be initiated in the third type of court, called circuit courts, which would convene in the same judicial districts in which the district courts met. The circuit courts had no judges of their own, but were served by two Supreme Court justices and the local district judge. (Congress soon revised the law to require only one justice on each circuit court.) Congress grouped the judicial districts into regional circuits for the purpose of assigning justices to serve on the circuit courts within that region. The circuit courts would hear some appeals from the district courts, but they were primarily trial courts. The circuit courts had exclusive jurisdiction over serious federal crimes and shared with the state courts jurisdiction over suits involving disputes above a certain monetary value, suits involving the U.S. government, and suits between citizens of different states.
Congress protected distinctive state legal traditions by drawing the judicial districts to coincide with state boundaries and by providing for the use of the respective state’s rules for most district and circuit court proceedings and for the selection of federal juries. Perhaps most important for protection of regional legal cultures, the assignment of “circuit riding” duties for Supreme Court justices ensured that the judges on the nation’s highest court would learn about local legal procedures and would interact with citizens at the point where cases entered the federal judicial system. The Judiciary Act also promoted a local orientation of the lower courts by requiring district judges to live in the district where they served. In response to widespread concerns that defendants in federal trials would be forced to appear in distant courts, the Judiciary Act required civil trials to be held in the district in which a defendant was served with a writ and trials involving the death penalty to be held in the county where the crime occurred.
I hope all this helps I am taking judicial law in school .
</span>
Answer:
One scarcity my community faces is access to green environments due to the industrialization of the city and its surroundings.
Explanation:
The major scarcity that my community suffers is the low access of green environments because the government prioritized the industrial development of the zone to provide its inhabitants manufacturing jobs that would allow them to progress however even when the income is above the average in the country, the quality of life is lower because of the conditions of the environment.
