Correct answer: C) seclusionist
Details:
Writing for <em>Ranker, </em>Danielle Ownbey notes: "The Amish live a secluded life away from other Americans (known to them as the English). Because of this seclusion, the average person knows very few facts about the inner workings of the Amish religion and culture."
Your question mentioned the role of the Supreme Court in protecting the rights of the Amish to follow their own beliefs and practices. An example would be the case, <em>Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder </em>(1972), in which the decision of the Supreme Court was that a state could not compel education past 8th grade for Amish children. The case revolved around some Amish families who would not send their children to New Glarus High School in Wisconsin. County court held the parents responsible (represented by Jonas Yoder, one of the Amish fathers). However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court and then the US Supreme Court found in favor of Yoder and the Amish families. The parents' right to freedom of religion was seen as a stronger concern than the state's interest in educating children. An interesting fact about the <em>Wisconsin v. Yoder </em>case is that the Amish typically would not go to court to settle a dispute, because that would be a move beyond what their religious beliefs would allow. But a Lutheran minister named William Lindholm took up their cause for the sake of protecting religious freedom as a primary right. Lindholm established the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom.
Rosetta Stone, think of the modern language course
Answer:
How did the constitution guard against Tyranny?
Explanation:
<span>Since the decision of the
Speaker of the House, John William McCormack, was to ask the high
chamber member Adam Clayton Powell Jr. not to take an oath, because of
the previous scandal in which Powell had been involved; If
the jury had decided in favor of Speaker McCormack, the way of operating
in the congress would have been questioned, since only one member could
be expelled according to what the constitution says, and not by the
decisions of the speaker. <span>The scope would have been very
large if it failed in McCormack's favor, giving a sense of illegality or
favoritism, and voters would feel that their representatives were not
respected.</span></span>
