Answer:
The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated. ... Holding: Random drug tests of students involved in extracurricular activities do not violate the Fourth Amendment. ...
Explanation:
They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the ... The Constitution did not give the Court this power.
Answer:
They did not wanted the central government to abuse their authority.
Explanation:
The initial draft of the constitution was created to ensure that the citizens of United States have the highest power within the government. The founding fathers analyze the weaknesses of monarchy system (which was the dominant system back then) and purposefully designed the constitution to fix those weaknesses by reducing the power of the central government.
But, a group called the Federalist appear and advocated for the change of the initial draft of the constitution. They believed that the initial draft make the central government became very inefficient. The anti-federalists opposed this and believed that the initial draft of the constitution was created to balance the power of the states and central government. They fear that if they made any change/ratification to this initial draft, that balance will be disrupted.
Answer:
The Columbia River Basin
Explanation:
The Columbia River Basin provides more than 40% of total U.S. hydroelectric generation. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, from Bonneville Power Administration
<3 Enjoy,
Dea
Answer:
strict liability or product liability for a manufacturing defect
Explanation:
The rules of strict liability state that someone will be strictly liable – liable without a victim having to prove negligence or fault – for an accident in certain circumstances while Strict product liability laws state that a manufacturer or distributor of a defective product will owe an injured person compensation even if the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent the defect.
Answer:
on grounds of 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
Explanation:
Both Brown V. Board of Education and parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle presented their case on grounds of 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
In Brown V. Board of Education, the court ruled that 'separate but equal' was an unconstitutional provision and that the practice of segregation was 'inherently unequal'. It further ruled out that these unequal provisions violated the equal protection laws.
Similarly, the parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle claimed and argued that racial tiebreaker in district schools subjugated and infringed 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
Though the initial plan of the racial tiebreaker system was to prevent racial imbalance in schools, the court adjudged that the system was unconstitutional because it, more or less, contributed to unequal opportunity in getting admissions.
