Pollution puts a lot of strain on the Earth in general.
Waist dumps do as well.
State Legisl<span>ators are a deliberative body of persons, usually elected, who are empowered to make, change, or repeal the laws of a country or </span>state; the branch of government having the power to make laws, as distinguished from the executive and judicial branches of government. They also have the power<span> to set up </span>state<span> governments - conduct </span>elections<span> - set up </span>public<span> school systems - oversee business regulations in the state - also traffic laws and laws that protect </span>public<span> health and ... Typical lawmaker has studied political science, law or </span>public<span> administration and has spent time in government service before running for </span>office<span>.</span>
In my view, the answer is: Compared with boys, girls are more likely to play in a. small groups. Because boys are less likely to demonstrate social modesty than girls. Girls like to spend their time with their friends, while boys don't about it and spend their time in larger groups.
The question asks, "What is YOUR philosophy?" I can't really tell you what YOU should think ... but I can present for you the ideas of a couple different political philosophers who took opposing stands on the issue.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both English philosophers who wrote during the 17th century.
Hobbes published a famous work called <em>Leviathan </em>in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). The people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. That was Hobbes' view.
John Locke famously published <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690. According to Locke's view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed. This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler. Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his <em>First Treatise on Civil Government. </em> In his <em>Second Treatise on Civil Government, </em> Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property. Locke always favored the people remaining in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.
As you write your own answer to this question for your class, you will want to decide, perhaps, if you agree more with Hobbes, that security and stability are most important ... or with Locke, that the authority and liberty of the people are always paramount.
Best answer: B. A state is sued for intentionally creating a Congressional district with a majority African-American population.
Background/context:
The landmark case regarding voting district lines was <em>Baker v. Carr </em>(1962), which pertained to voting districts in Tennessee. The plaintiff, Charles Baker, argued that voting districts, which had not been redrawn since 1901, heavily favored rural locations over urban centers which had grown significantly since then. Joe Carr was Secretary of State for Tennessee at the time, so was named in the case in regard to voting district lines as drawn by the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled that voting districts were not merely a political matter to be decided by legislatures, but that they were subject to review by federal courts to determine their fairness.
The matter of redrawing district lines has come up in court cases recently as some state legislatures, when dominated by one political party, have "gerrymandered" district lines to try to maintain continued prominence for their party. Legislatures dominated by one party may redraw district lines (following the US Census) in ways that favor their party's candidates maintaining an advantage. Earlier this year, lawsuits were filed against the states of Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, accusing those states of trying to isolate African-American voters to limit their impact on Congressional elections. According to <em>Courthouse News Service </em>(June 14, 2018), "In Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana, local lawyers filed lawsuits in federal court against each states’ Secretary of States ... alleging the Republican efforts in 2011 to redraw congressional lines left many of the minority black voters packed into one district and breaking up pockets of others."
