Http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/9b_p1.html
That's my presentation just to give you an idea of what you are supposed to do please don't plagiarize it thx!
Hope it helps! :-)
The correct answer is true
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as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid.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
1. Prison and mental hospital reform – Dorothea Lynde Dix
2. Abolitionism reform - William Lloyd Garrison
3. Education reform – Horace Mann
Prison and mental hospital reform- This reform was an attempt to improve the mental and physical health conditions of the prisoners. The motive of this reform was also to reinstatement of the people who lives are affected by different crimes.
Abolitionism- This reform started in the mid 18th century and lasted till 1865. The motive of this reform was to abolish or end the slavery in the United States.
Education reform: This reform was established to spread the availability of education for more children. The education reform gain support from all over the country.
Answer:
The new labour system established in the south during reconstruction was sharecropping.
Explanation:
The new system introduced in the south was sharecropping. Under this system the black families would work on a small piece of land, they would live and grow crops on it.
As rent the families would give a portion of their crops to the landowners. It helped them lived safely and had a secure source of income. Sharecropping was mostly done in the south.
