1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
mariarad [96]
3 years ago
14

When a person is asked about a political issue that he or she has little interest in and has not thought much about , that perso

ns answer will likely reflect?
History
1 answer:
Alisiya [41]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

What they hear from other sources

Explanation:

If you are not interested in a topic say political issues, you will just say what you catch here and there from friends, TV, family, and radio. You wont study it to tell what you really think.

You might be interested in
What is one way that australopithecus differed from apes?????
worty [1.4K]

One way that the genus Australopithecus differed from apes is that they had a less slanted forehead. This was primarily seen in the africanus species of Australopithecus. Australopithecus evolved more than 4 million years ago and shares a common ancestor with humans and chimpanzees.


5 0
3 years ago
What areas were muslim lands by 750
Irina18 [472]
It was most of the middle east. <span>From Iberia and Morocco in the west, across North Africa</span>
6 0
4 years ago
What does our portrayal of our nation's history reveal about our culture?
stich3 [128]

It means that the young people of today don't care about our nation's history so that means they will make the mistakes of repeating history.

3 0
3 years ago
Why did the domino theory cause the U.S. to become involved in Vietnam?
elena-14-01-66 [18.8K]
China had become communist in 1949 and communists were in control of North Vietnam. The USA was afraid that communism would spread to South Vietnam and then the rest of Asia. It decided to send money, supplies and military advisers to help South Vietnamese Government.
4 0
3 years ago
Understanding the Case
S_A_V [24]

Answer:

Marbury: Was appointed as a federal judge - Supported the Judiciary Act of 1789 - Argued for original jurisdiction.

-Madison: Refused to honor an appointment.Explanation:

Marbury v. Madison was a judicial case resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1803. It arose as a result of a political dispute following the presidential elections of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic Republican, defeated then-President John Adams, who was a federalist. In the last days of the outgoing government of Adams, the Congress, dominated by the federalists, established a series of judicial positions, among them 42 justices the of peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the appointments, the president signed them and the Secretary of State was in charge of sealing and delivering the appointment documents. In the last-minute hustle and bustle, the outgoing secretary of state did not deliver the minutes of appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury.

The new secretary of state under President Jefferson, James Madison, refused to deliver the minutes of appointment as the new government was irritated by the maneuver of the federalists of trying to secure control of the judiciary with the appointment of members of their party just before ceasing in government. However, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his record.

If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury, Madison could still refuse to deliver the record and the Supreme Court would have no way to enforce the order. If the Court ruled against Marbury, it risked submitting the judiciary to Jefferson's supporters by allowing them to deny Marbury the position he could legally claim. Chief Justice John Marshall resolved this dilemma by deciding that the Supreme Court was not empowered to settle this case. Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which granted the Court these powers, was unconstitutional because it extended the original jurisdiction of the Court to the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution itself. Having decided not to intervene in this particular case, the Supreme Court secured its position as final arbiter of the law.

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What concept was Hamilton defining?
    7·1 answer
  • Which Spanish conqueror is not accurately matched with the area he explored or conquered? A. Francisco Vasquez de Coronado - wes
    14·2 answers
  • Which landform is most common in Eastern Europe and Western Russia
    9·2 answers
  • How were women treated during Nanjing massacre?
    10·1 answer
  • What led to the beginning ir world war ii in europe and germany's early successes?
    7·1 answer
  • Why didn’t indians unite against the british in the sepoy mutiny?
    7·1 answer
  • Describe how Progressivism included both democratic and undemocratic characteristics.
    7·1 answer
  • At which stage does an argumentative essay’s writer create and support a central claim?
    9·2 answers
  • At its point of greatest extent in which regions did the byzantine empire hold territory?
    13·2 answers
  • Why are there seasons
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!