Answer:
When he was arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous branch to the political rights of the Constitution,” in part because he believed the federal courts would stand above the political fray and act as a bulwark against tyranny from all directions.
But it’s hard to defend the Supreme Court on these grounds today.
As my colleague Matthew Yglesias has argued, the Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests. And the recent disaster that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.
So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we should abolish the Supreme Court, or at the very least strip the Court of its ability to overturn laws that it rules unconstitutional. If the Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, if it’s gradually shape-shifting into a partisan weapon, then maybe it’s time to rethink its role in our constitutional system.
Answer:
While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong. ... The legal duty involves a corresponding right.
Explanation:
It gets energy from the nutrition in the plant
Answer:
The words Christ and Christian derive from the Koine Greek title Christós , a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term mashiach
Explanation:
Answer:
Humanism stresses the importance of human values and dignity. It proposes that people can resolve problems through the use of science and reason. Rather than looking to religious traditions, humanism instead focuses on helping people live well, achieve personal growth, and make the world a better place.
