Answer:
A. By the federal government
Explanation:
There are certain actions that limit the way a company does business in a country. Looking at PESTEL analysis, you will see that there are Political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors that limit a business from thriving. However, Bailey, the president of Carmichael Commodities Companies claimed that some actions taken by the the federal government alone, infringe on rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Answer: A.)
Explanation: states function independently of one another.
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 Roe v. Wade case
is not one that the Warren Court established.
<u>Explanation:
</u>
Roe v. Wade, a court case of the US Supreme Court was a landmark decision that protected the pregnant woman's liberty to have a choice to have an abortion without government restriction. The Ruling court for Roe v. Wade case is the Supreme Court of the United States.
The term Warren Court applies to the highest court of the United States under Chief judge Earl Warren, which was held from 5 October 1953 to 23 June 1969, and is arguably one of the two significant times of American constitutional law history.
Warren, as Chief Judge, used his political power to direct the Court into decisions that are often contentious and which dramatically increase civil rights and freedoms and the judicial branch.
Warren Court essentially ended racial discrimination in U.S. government schools, expanded plaintiffs ' constitutional rights, guaranteed equal opportunity in state parliamentarians, banned public school state priests, and paving the way for abortive legalization.
66 points ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Artyom0805 [142]
The thing which is the property, services, or money that a contract offeror provides to the offeree is a consideration.
<h3>What do you mean by a contract?</h3>
A contract refers to the enforceable agreement that defines and governs mutual rights and obligations among parties.
Consideration refers to anything of value that is given or promised such as money, property, services, or forbearance to induce another to enter into the contract.
Therefore, C is the correct option.
Learn more about the Contract here:
brainly.com/question/2669219
#SPJ1
