1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Arte-miy333 [17]
3 years ago
5

hich answer supports the statement, "The state constitution is more detailed than the U.S. Constitution"? A) The U.S. Constituti

on was created after state constitutions had been established. B) The U.S. Constitution only exists because the state constitutions allowed it to be created. C) The Articles in the state constitution do not deal with amendments like the U.S. Constitution does. D) The Articles in the state constitution deal with more specific issues than does the U.S. Constitution.
History
2 answers:
Ilia_Sergeevich [38]3 years ago
8 0

The correct answer is D) The Articles in the state constitution deal with more specific issues than does the U.S. Constitution.

The US constitution defines the structure of national - federal - government, its limits and the Bill of Rights.  The States Constitutions also have the same structure, they outline the state government’s limits and also contain a bill of rights. The difference is that States Constitutions are much longer and detailed than the Federal Constitution because they focus on limiting power. States constitutions also are more open to amendments that are more easily approved, different than the Federal Constitution that has only been amended 17 times.


Dahasolnce [82]3 years ago
3 0
<h3>D) The Articles in the state constitution deal with more specific issues than does the U.S. Constitution.</h3>

The Articles in the state constitution deal with more specific issues than does the U.S. Constitution. Think of the U.S. Constitution as more of a "framework." It limits the power of government- both national and state- but it also provides states the opportunity to deal with many things the national government does not and cannot (education, for example).

You might be interested in
What two values did buddha say people should live by
Natali [406]

Answer:

Buddha's most important teachings, known as The Four Noble Truths, are essential to understanding the religion. Buddhists embrace the concepts of karma (the law of cause and effect) and reincarnation (the continuous cycle of rebirth). Followers of Buddhism can worship in temples or in their own homes.

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How was Sparta governed
crimeas [40]
The Spartan monarchy consisted of 2 kings which governed over Sparta ironically they had very little power over the government.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of these is an example of a domestic policy?
SOVA2 [1]
The only example of a domestic policy from the list would be "<span>a law passed that funds military programs," since domestic policies have to do with issues pertaining to the country in question, not the relationship of the country with other nations. </span>
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did Diocletian divide the empire into two sections?
Elodia [21]

Answer:

Why did Diocletian divide the empire into two sections?

Explanation:

He thought that dividing the empire would make it easier to rule. ... The soldiers hired on the frontiers were not willing to go defend other parts of the empire. Soldiers in the outer parts of the Roman Empire often supported local commanders instead of the emperor.

3 0
2 years ago
Was the United States sending Japanese people to internment camps justified?
Inga [223]

Answer:

The Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor changed the course of American lives forever; not only did it thrust America into declaring war on Japan, but it also changed the lives of the Japanese-Americans and Japanese people living in the United States. Congress and the President of the United States of America, Franklin D. Roosevelt, would pass legislation to remove people of Japanese descent from the West Coast.1 This legislation would become known as Executive Order 9906; the US army was tasked with detaining and removing Japanese people to relocation centers which became known as internment camps.2 Over this six month period over 122,000 men, women, and children would be incarcerated, and 70,000 of them were American citizens who were charged with no crimes.3 I would argue that this is one of the most egregious actions that the US Government has made in the 20th century; they passed an executive order to have their own citizens arrested and incarcerated with no charges filed against them. The lack of substantial evidence against Japanese Americans was evident, and the intelligence gathered by the agencies did not point to any acts of terror or sabotage on the American homeland. Furthermore, the actions were based on “military necessity”, but the government never did an investigation on whether these actions were justified.  Many of these people filed cases against the US Government in court, but the Supreme Court upheld the actions of the US Government. These actions should be very alarming to all citizens of the United States of America no matter what ethnicity; this was a blatant act of prejudice against people with Japanese heritage.  

The US Government used fear tactics along with spreading propaganda in order to justify the actions they would take to incarcerate Japanese Americans.4 They needed to get the public fearful of the Japanese American people living in the United States and they needed to have a few instances of Japanese sympathizers spying on Americans to make their claims legitimate. The best evidence for this would be the LA Times articles that appeared over a year span: they ran the headlines, “Japan Pictures As Nation of Spies”, “American Japs Removal Urged”, and “Lincoln Would Intern Japs”.5 As one could see this type of language and attention would instill fear into anyone who read the articles and thus create an atmosphere of fear and prejudice. Furthermore, an article wrote by Walt Lippmann six days before Executive Order 9906 was passed, stated “The enemy alien problem on the Pacific Coast, or much more accurately, the fifth column problem, is very serious and it is very special. . . .The peculiar danger of the Pacific Coast is in a Japanese raid accompanied by enemy action inside American territory. . . . It is the fact that the Japanese navy has been reconnoitering the Pacific Coast more or less continually and for a considerable period of time, testing and feeling out the American defenses. It is the fact that communication takes place between the enemy at sea and enemy agents on land. These are facts which we shall ignore or minimize at our peril. It is the fact that since the outbreak of the Japanese war there has been no important sabotage on the Pacific Coast. From what we know about Hawaii and about the fifth column in Europe, this is not, as some have liked to think, a sign that there is nothing to be feared. It is a sign that the blow is well organized and that it is held back until it can be struck with maximum effect . . . The Pacific Coast is officially a combat zone; some part of it may at any moment be a battlefield. Nobody's constitutional rights include the right to reside and do business on a battlefield. And nobody ought to be on a battlefield who has no good reason for being there”. The US Government used military nomenclature and fear as the main components to justify the incarceration of the Japanese and Japanese American’s to the American people.  

The last justification for Executive Order 9906 was due to the actions of a few high ranking officials in Congress and the military, but the most influential of these men was Lieutenant General John DeWitt. He was the commanding officer of the West Coast theatre of operations and was known for his lack of compassion and quick to respond to any threat. Furthermore, he was known to believe any intelligence that was produced on the Japanese Americans, and that he lacked common sense when dealing with all the reports. He was quoted as saying “ I have little confidence that the enemy aliens are law abiding or loyal in any sense

of the word. Some of them, yes; many, no. Particularly the Japanese, I have no confidence in their loyalty whatsoever. I am speaking now of the native-born Japanese-117,000-and 42,000 in California alone.”  

Explanation:

Hope I helped!

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Examine how British policies toward the colonies changed in the wake of the French and Indian War. How did these policies lead t
    7·1 answer
  • Explin the court case mapp v. ohio
    15·1 answer
  • Why were the Knights of Labor originally a secret society?
    6·2 answers
  • Which side did each of these states fight for
    12·2 answers
  • What do these disagreements reveal about the changing relationship between the United States and the USSR?
    13·2 answers
  • In a series of speeches before her trial for breaking the law by voting in an 1872 federal election, Susan B. Anthony defender h
    12·1 answer
  • Explain why Texas, compared to other territories, was slow to become populated by both Spanish and Anglos.
    12·2 answers
  • What was the relationship between the democratic party and the populist party
    10·1 answer
  • Religion<br> Islam Judaism Christianity<br> Founder<br> Main Holy Book<br> Main Beliefs
    9·1 answer
  • What was true about Africa Americans during the war?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!