Answer:
about 8 years so two terms but it is possible to be president for 10 years
Both the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the twenty-second amendment were created to limit the power of the president. The war power resolution was passed over the veto of President Nixon to provide procedures for Congress to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities, and the Twenty-Second Amendment was one of the recommendations to the U.S. Congress by the Hoover Commission, created by President Harry S. Truman, to reorganize and reform the federal government in 1947, setting a two terms limit for presidential candidates, a total of eight years.
The correct answer is B) directional.
David is very frustrated because he feels that he works very hard for the company but is not rewarded. David's trying very hard indicates he has a high directional element of motivation.
David knows that his motivation requires direction and focus to maintain the purpose and the goal of his hard work. That is why he is committed to working hard, be persistent, and never quit on his aspirations. Knowing that he is doing all of that, he feels frustrated because nobody is appreciating his effort and dedication.
The queen decides who is the prime minister
Answer:
a. The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Its purpose is to apply substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War. Hence, in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), Supreme Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
While in the case of Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), Supreme Court held that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997 boundaries was based on clearly erroneous findings.
b. In the case of Easley v. Cromartie, an appeal from the decision given in hunt v. Cromartie was filed in the supreme court of the United States by Easley. In hunt v. Cromartie, the court held that the legislature of North Carolina did not use the factor of race while drawing the boundaries in the twelfth congressional district,1992. It was held by the court that the legislature did not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution and no evidence to prove that legislature set its boundaries on a racial basis rather than a political basis.
In Easley v Cromartie the appeal was that drawing the boundaries for voting violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. The supreme court of the United States held that the decision of the district court is erroneous because it actually relied upon racial factors and this is not in the interest of the state.
In Shaw v. Reno the court concluded that the plan of North Carolina tried to segregate the voters on the basis of race.
