Portugal<span>, </span>Spain<span>, Andorra, </span>England<span>, </span>France<span>, Monaco, </span>Luxembourg<span>, </span>Belgium<span>, the Netherlands, </span>Germany<span>, </span>Switzerland<span>, Liechtenstein, </span>Italy<span>, San Marino, </span>Malta<span>, </span>Austria<span>, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Albania, </span><span>Greece</span>
The correct answer is <span>Marbury v. Madison
This was one of the most important cases in United States history because it showed to what extent does the power of the judicial branch actually go. They managed to show that the judicial branch, as a part of the checks and balances system, has the power to completely abolish a law or an executive order if they find it to be unconstitutional.</span>
Answer:
A. The proposed measures would be unconstitutional. The goal of the electoral colleges was to avoid a dictatorship. However, in modern America, such concept is completely out of date. To that extent, changing the way the electoral college operates would need a change in the constitution itself.
B. The government might modify the constitution, or a section of the constitution dealing with the electoral college, to better reflect current American requirements. Our founding fathers actually proposed that the constitution be changed on a regular basis in order to accommodate these new-age principles.
C. A possible candidate would appeal to the masses and would be more population leaning than state leaning; states and cities with larger populations would receive more attention than more rural places; and more democratic and liberal leaning politicians would have a huge advantage because large cities and populations are their core demographic.
Explanation:
"<span>Jackson refused to support laws that would set up a national bank" is the best option here. Jackson was famously opposed to the creation of a national bank. </span>
Answer:
i don't know what it is yet lol
