It was the year of the great gold rush my dude goodluck
Answer:
O. Periodic appointments would destroy a judge's independence.
Explanation:
Alexander Hamilton wrote in his "Federalist Papers No. 78" how the independence of judges is important for the security of everyone. Stating that <em>"the general liberty of the people can never be endangered .... so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive"</em>. He further went to demand that <em>"independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals"</em>. He believes that independence of the judiciary from either the legislative or executive is a much needed act, for it will ensure the right and correct implementation of judgement. He proposed that <em>"complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution"</em>.
Moreover, judges' permanent appointment will ensure the rightful passing of judgement which can be flawed if the judges are appointed periodically. For no two persons are the same, so this may lead to differences in opinions which will lead to the former judgement being recanted by the next person appointed. Thus, he opines that <em>"periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence"</em>.
Thus, the correct answer is the third option.
Before a bill is a bill, it is an idea, then a bill, and from there it needs a sponsor, or a few, from the House of Representatives, and from there it is then introduced into the House of Representatives, then it goes to the Committee who revise, review, and research the bill. It's then sent back to the House, debated/voted upon, where it goes to the Senate, from the Senate to the President, he signs it, and thus the bill becomes a law.
