1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Amiraneli [1.4K]
3 years ago
13

The Supreme Court justices are more willing to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional than to strike down presidential action

s as contradicting the U.S. Constitution. Why is this the case? When have the Supreme Court justices checked presidential power in the past?
History
1 answer:
stealth61 [152]3 years ago
8 0
Laws passed through congress have a direct impact on the court system, since it changes the way courts have to rule on the law. The Supreme court allows the court system to have some say in what laws are just by appealing their agreement with the constitution. The President doesn't directly pass laws, he has the power to veto congressional laws and through his endorsement behind them, but doesn't actually have the power to write, create or pass new laws himself, even if he's the one who technically signs them into law. As such, the supreme court checks the president less often than congress, because the president's actions affect the court's sphere of interest less often. Most interaction between the president and the court happen when the President heavily endorses a bill, gets it passed through congress, and then the court checks it. Some great examples are the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the National Recovery Administration, which were created through bills sponsored by Franklin Roosevelt as part of his New Deal reforms. The court struck them down as unconstitutional for various reasons, much to the dismay of FDR. In modern times, Obamacare almost had it's individual mandate requirement stuck down by the court a few years ago and elements of President Trump's muslim travel ban were struck down by the supreme court just in the last month.
You might be interested in
what is a theme of william tell?the desire for power may lead to dangerous choices.at times, it is wiser to think before acting.
leva [86]

Answer:

Part A

For some, freedom is worth sacrificing one's life.

Part B

Tell explains why he has joined with a small group of men to fight huge foreign armies.

Explanation:

I took the test :)

6 0
3 years ago
Who belonged to the poorest class during the Middle Ages
Andru [333]
They wewre called the serfs/pesants.
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was the outcome of the third crusade?
MAVERICK [17]
Crusader military victory, resulting in a three-year truce. Recognition of the territorial status quo at the end of active campaigning, including continued Muslim control of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Levantine Crusader States.
4 0
3 years ago
What is one of the following problems that may have a result from a direct democracy
love history [14]

Answer:

<h2>direct democracy</h2><h2>Issues and controversies</h2><h2>Discussions on direct-democratic institutions deal with several issues. The strongest normative grounds for direct democracy are the democratic principles of popular sovereignty, political equality, and all the arguments for participative democracy that support the idea that all citizens should have the right not only to elect representatives but also to vote on policy issues in referenda. Since assembly democracy cannot be an option in modern societies (outside Switzerland), direct-democratic institutions are regarded not as a full-scale alternative to representative democracy but as a supplement to or counterweight within democratic systems with major representative features. Nevertheless, the institutional difference and competition between representative and direct-democratic processes lie at the core of the controversy whether direct democracy contributes to undermining representative democracy or can offer enrichments of democracy.</h2>

<h3>Explanation:</h3>

<h3>correct me if I'm wrong</h3><h3>please brainless my answer</h3>
7 0
3 years ago
Come up with three reasons why anti-government speech was a threat.
san4es73 [151]
Government is essential to society

Speeches usually come from people who are looking to do negative things like killing, destruction, & overall disruption

It is a threat to take away power from people in the government

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Giving out brainliest
    5·1 answer
  • Why does 622 A.D. mark the first year in the religion of Islam?
    5·1 answer
  • How did the ruling philosophies of Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini differ?
    8·1 answer
  • In England a King hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to empoverish the nati
    9·2 answers
  • Conomics FWISD
    6·2 answers
  • Which European country had the largest impact on Mexican and Central American
    15·1 answer
  • Hey so I need a introduction paragraph for my essay about Cuba I'm having a hard time with the hook and how to really entertain
    11·1 answer
  • Who influenced Pocahontas’s decision to convert christianity?
    12·1 answer
  • In your own words define conclusion
    6·1 answer
  • Help me write at least 3 sentences to start it pls I’m so lost
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!