<span>Since the decision of the
Speaker of the House, John William McCormack, was to ask the high
chamber member Adam Clayton Powell Jr. not to take an oath, because of
the previous scandal in which Powell had been involved; If
the jury had decided in favor of Speaker McCormack, the way of operating
in the congress would have been questioned, since only one member could
be expelled according to what the constitution says, and not by the
decisions of the speaker. <span>The scope would have been very
large if it failed in McCormack's favor, giving a sense of illegality or
favoritism, and voters would feel that their representatives were not
respected.</span></span>
Answer:
I think the answer is Minao
The closest one is the last one. He can veto bills that he doesn't like. That means it has to go back to both houses. They can re-submit it with a 2/3 majority and his veto can be overridden and it becomes law without his consent.
In his text "Slavery, a System of Inherent Cruelty," Theodore D. Weld shows how cattle were sometimes treated better than slaves. An example he gives of this is how cattle are allowed to graze as much as they want, while slaves often received a very small portion of food. Another example he gives is how when cattle are to be sold, they are transported in a way that is comfortable to them. On the other hand, slaves often had to walk very long distances, regardless of the weather, while being chained to each other.
Answer:
The Warren Court made decisions regarding segregation and civil liberties. The most famous court decision was Brown v. Board of Education which ended school segregation in America and began a wave of desegregation decisions. These decisions created uproar in the South and cause military intervention at times. Miranda v. Arizona was another famous Warren Court decision which better defined the Fifth Amendment and how a person must be informed on their rights when arrested. These cases were often racial in nature redefining civil liberties and due process of the law.Yes the Warren Court did exceed its boundaries in issuing some of its decisions during the 1960s. For example the court gave its decision regarding women suffrage and it was not taken well by many women of that time. Many women were forced to suffer the consequences of the decision given by the Warren Court in regards to women's suffrage.The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a joint resolution which the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964. It gave power to the president to use conventional military force without declaration of war. It basically gave more power to the president then checks and balances allow. In this case for the given question let us assume that it was the executive branch that had taken fore step and became more powerful. If such had happened the power resting upon the head of the society or the president would increase and the chances of being mistake in due to the presence of human emotions and flaws would come into action. The decisions taken by the agencies would be biased and hence the laws that would be made would not necessarily benefits the society. When the US Constitution was written, the States feared a strong Federal Government. Because of the three branches system the US Constitution created a new system that revolutionized Constitutions around the world: the Checks and Balances system. The Checks and Balances system is a system that the US Constitution created to give powers to each of those three branches to limit the power of the other branch. Each branch has typical and atypical powers, and those atypical powers are the ones that are used to limit the typical powers of other branches. Because of that, if any of the three branches exceeds its authority the other branches have the power to stop this power and return the thing to status quo ante. Example of this atypical powers is: The Power of Veto the President has, the Impeachment Power of the Congress and Power the judicial branch has to declare a law unconstitutional. As you can notice, the Constitution created a system that autoregulates itself so that power and democracy are stable. The Warren Court has caused social change but one thing that the warren court has impacted positivily is that it broadened the individual rights of accused criminals. yes there is ups and downs to the warren court and it was a big thing in the 19th century but remembering on how of a impact it was has gave us importance today because any case that had segregation and enough evidence was presented, then a law for segregation would be unconstitutional.
Explanation:
