The intentional and organized killing of a group of people based on their ethnicity, race, religion, nationality, or other trait is known as genocide
Rojo, dulce, verde, agrio, amargo.
In civil cases, the burden is on the plaintiff and the standard that must be met is known as: <u>Preponderance of the evidence</u>.
Explanation:
A plaintiff is a person who brings a case against the other in a court to get justice for the injustice done by the other person. Since he has got the other person in the court, so the burden is on the plaintiff to provide the evidences which will prove that his case is right.
In civil cases, there is a standard that is to met which the preponderance of the evidence. This means the evidences that are to be provided in the court which will decide in whose favor the case will go. And since the plaintiff has done a case on the other, it is the burden of the plaintiff to get an evidence in the court.
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".[2]
The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the
plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After
review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not
unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3]
was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority
for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the
end of his opinion in this decision,[4]
Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's
responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary
consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as
instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
