Answer:
When he was arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous branch to the political rights of the Constitution,” in part because he believed the federal courts would stand above the political fray and act as a bulwark against tyranny from all directions.
But it’s hard to defend the Supreme Court on these grounds today.
As my colleague Matthew Yglesias has argued, the Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests. And the recent disaster that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.
So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we should abolish the Supreme Court, or at the very least strip the Court of its ability to overturn laws that it rules unconstitutional. If the Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, if it’s gradually shape-shifting into a partisan weapon, then maybe it’s time to rethink its role in our constitutional system.
I think it is C, but I am not sure if it is correct. If the answer is wrong, then I apologize.
Explanation:
Fertility, mortality and migration are principal determinants of population growth. Population change depends on the natural increase changes seen in birth rates and the change seen in migration. Changes in population size can be predicted based on changes in fertility (births), mortality (deaths) and migration rates.
The main purpose of the Mounds was burial: the Mounds were a burial site for some distinguished people, such as kings. Other possible purpose was for ceremonies (ceremonies performed on top of the mound).
This reflects personal fable. This is an acceptance apprehended
by many youths telling them that they are different and exceptional, so much so
that nothing of life's problems or difficulties will touch them notwithstanding
of their behavior. This in turn can make them feel protected.
<span> </span>
