When a justice avoids interpreting the Constitution past its clear words, this is<u> judicial restraint.</u> But when a justice considers wider societal applications in decisions, this is<u> judicial activism. </u>
<h3>What are judicial activism and restraint?</h3>
Judicial activism refers to when a Judge/ Justice decides to consider the implications of their decisions when making court rulings. This can often lead to them making inferences on the Constitution.
This is the opposite of Judicial Restraint where a Judge/ Justice decides to interpret a law within the clear confines and words of the Constitution.
Find out more on Judicial Restraint at brainly.com/question/15452280.
Answer:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained provisions barring discrimination and segregation in education, public facilities, jobs, and housing
Explanation:
The civil rights movement that happened during the 1960s was simply a struggle for social justice to enable black people in the US gain equal rights under the United States of America laws.
The movements led to the enactment of Civil Rights Act in June 1964. President John F. Kennedy was the sitting president at that time who sent the bill to the congress a year earlier. The Southern segregationist senators stalled the process and when president Kennedy was killed, Lyndon Baines took over and and ensured the bill was passed.
The act contained certain provisions that prohibits discrimination and segregation in education, public facilities, jobs, and housing. It made for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission creation which ensured fair hiring practices.
The reasoning used in determining the action taken in this question is inducting reasoning, using strong arguments. Induction reasoning is a type of reasoning where premises (evidence of something that occur or something that has factual basis) helps an individual in coming to a conclusion based on these premises.
It’s clear that the writer’s previous experiences with Charlie’s drinking and subsequent obnoxious behaviors in the past parties that they’ve attended together led her or him to think that this behavior would appear again, thus making strong arguments to not invite Charlie to the next party.
Hey there,
Most likely, Mughal would have continued to control and rule large parts of South Asia. It would also probably have numerous attacks from European colonies. Thanks to the unification of South Asian armies, this wasn't the case. Finally, Urdu language would expand throughout South Asia.
:)