The reasons why the Europeans delayed setting up settlements included:
- The extreme distance.
- The inhospitable climate.
<h3>Why did the Europeans delay setting up settlements?</h3>
Australia and some areas in the Pacific had some very extreme climates with Australia have several deserts and dangerous animals.
Coupled with the fact that these areas were extremely far from Europe, the Europeans took their time to set up settlements there because it would require more effort than setting up colonies elsewhere.
Find out more on European colonization at brainly.com/question/12998233.
In the 30s, the Japanese Empire was, in fact, in need of resources. Although throughout world war 2 we see that they have eyes on territory the most, their primary goal was actually to gain resources, as their islands have no natural resources, which narrows their options during development. China was on of their neighbors that they attacked, firstly at Manchuria, because it was a large area of the country that generated resources that were vital to the Japanese. They also attacked Korea and later the United States, as the U.S had placed a trade embargo on Japan.
Rights and freedoms are best protected under a local government is the answer. Hope this helps.
“The following statement about the disenfranchisement of African Americans in the South which is true is that white voting officials administered difficult literacy tests to African American voters. Since African Americans were denied the same standard of education as American Whites, when offered literacy tests they often had trouble completing them. The voting officials were aware of this, but did it anyways, as it was another way for them to hinder African Americans from voting and from entering the larger society.”
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
