The most important<span> set of provisions in the Judiciary Act of 1789 created a three-tiered federal </span>court structure<span>. At the top was the </span>United States Supreme Court<span> (the only one expressly named in the </span>Constitution<span>), to consist of one chief justice and five associate justices.
If this is even what you need.</span>
Tea Act of 1773, which caused the boston tea party in the same year leading up to a war 2 years later.
Answer:
The answer is C.Local credit union
Explanation:
Firstly, Carlos owns a small, local business, so using the Fed would be unpractical (by the way I'm sure the Federal Reserve is the wrong answer because I took the test and it said so). Wall Street is a symbol for the U.S. financial markets, not an actual corporation that he could use to raise money; its figurative. Using the stock market would mean that Carlos would have to sell some ownership of his business so he can make money. In summary, your best answer is C. Local Credit Union.
Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
Horses
Sugar
I think I feel like there’s more than that but yeah I hope I’m right if I’m wrong I apologize
