Answer:
The decision will also be applicable in ongoing and ensuing elections.
Chandigarh:
Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday announced an increase in expenditure limit 10 per cent for candidates contesting Assembly and Lok Sabha elections.
According to the letter issued today, this decision will also be applicable in ongoing and ensuing elections.
Giving information in this regard, Punjab State Chief Electoral Officer S Karuna Raju said that two-member committee has also been constituted by the commission. He said that now onwards candidates contesting Lok Sabha elections in Punjab would be able to spend ₹ 77 lakh instead of ₹ 70 lakh, while candidates contesting Assembly elections will be able to spend ₹ 30.80 lakh instead of ₹ 28 lakh.
The following is missing for the question to be complete:
1. They should indicate problems may exist
2. They should answer "unknown" to any questions about plumbing
3. They should indicate that there are known plumbing problems
4. They should note the fact that it's an older system and potential buyers should have it professionally examined
Answer: 2. They should answer "unknown" to any questions about plumbing
Explanation: Since Madison had no problems with the pipes in the water system, i.e there was nothing to indicate that there was corrosion in the pipes, she simply could not know that she needed to examine the water system as a site of potential problem. As stated, the whole house is old, and substantial problems in such a house can occur everywhere. When filling in any questionnaire or form in the place provided for the plumbing system, it should be put "unknown" because there was no external sign that the pipes were corroded. Of course, even a real estate agent does not know this, and it is always possible, before purchasing a home by a new prospective buyer, to hire one of the experts to review and evaluate what may be the breakdowns and potential issues that may affect the price of the home when buying. The prospective buyer can simply consult with an expert all the items of the home where their condition is noted as "unknown".
Both the cases, Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education, involved interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court decided that racial discrimination in accommodations was permissible. After 58 years, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka (1954) that racial accommodations were fundamentally unfair and therefore unconstitutional.
The Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, which sanctioned the "separate but equal" practises, was overturned by the Brown decision, making it a significant legal precedent. According to the Plessy decision's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, segregated facilities might be used to achieve legal equality.
Know more about Plessy v. Ferguson here
brainly.com/question/12846797
#SPJ4
He ( who ever that is) stopped the process of justice by turning down his (who ever that is ) group of laws for making judiciary powers (judges and such)