Correct answer: on the basis of the age of sitting judges.
Context/explanation:
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was eager to implement his New Deal programs as an antidote to the Great Depression. However, the US Supreme Court had already ruled that some provisions of the New Deal were unconstitutional, because they took too much power into the hands of the federal government, especially the executive branch of the federal government. So, riding the momentum of his landslide reelection victory in 1936, in February of 1937, FDR proposed a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges. The plan offered to provide full pay to justices over age 70 who would retire. If the older justices didn't retire, assistant justices (with full voting rights) would be appointed to sit with those existing justices. This was a way FDR hoped to give the court a liberal majority that would side with his programs.
As it turned out, before FDR's proposal came up for a vote in Congress, two of the sitting justices came over to his side of the argument, and the Supreme Court narrowly approved as constitutional both the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act. So his plan (which failed in the US Senate) became unnecessary to his purposes.
Roosevelt's "court-packing" scheme was unpopular. It was seen as an attempt to take away the independence of the judicial branch of government.
Answer:It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.
i got this from google
:)
Fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Answer:
Humanistic psychologists focused on the importance of a human self-development and fulfilling individual potential.
Explanation:
They say the possibility and tendency of self-development is immanent, natural and we all born with it. The main work of a psychologist, educator, coach etc. is to find the way theu can support other person's full development.
They differ as far as the goal of the development is concern. For some, like Carl Rogers, it is just a fulfilling the person potential as it is, for others, like existential psychologists (like Victor Frankl) is trancendenting towards something bigger that just the personal "I" - God, spirit, absolute.
Social media is an instant reach to billions of people, when human rights violations occur they are not so easily squashed and contained and many people are able to find out about it. Sometimes sparking worldwide outrage. As an example look for a journalist who was killed in South America recently.
Because it is so instantaneous many people feel it violated their right to privacy and security and safety. Pictures of you can be shared with the world in second along with the fact that many social media websites have tracking applications that know where you go, who you are with and can even monitor the rest of the activity on your phone. This is why you may get ads for things you looked up.
