It was necessary to have five constitutional amendments to expand voting rights to ensure "every adult citizen could vote for any candidates of their choice regardless of color, gender, and financial capability."
This is evident in the five amendments on voting rights, with each amendment solving an issue relating to voting rights.
The five amendments are the following:
- Fifteenth amendment: solve the issue relating to race, color, or servitude.
- The nineteenth amendment: gave women the right to vote.
- The twenty-third amendment: gave the right to vote for representatives.
- Twenty-fourth amendment: solve the issue of the poll tax in the election.
- Twenty-sixth amendment: solve the issue of age restrictions. Voters must be 18 and above.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that five constitutional amendments to expand voting rights were necessary to avoid disenfranchisement of any adult citizens in voting during an election.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/22970867
A primary source. A primary sources are first hand accounts like diaries, autobiographies, etc.
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".[2]
The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the
plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After
review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not
unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3]
was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority
for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the
end of his opinion in this decision,[4]
Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's
responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary
consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as
instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
a. In the prisoners' dilemma game self-interest leads each prisoner to confess. to a breakdown of any agreement that the prisoners might have made before being questioned to an outcome that is not particularly good for either prisoner.
What is prisoners' dilemma game?
The prisoner's dilemma is a common illustration of a game explored in game theory that demonstrates why two logical people could disagree even though it seems to be in their best interests to collaborate.
The possible outcomes:
- If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison
- If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison
- If A remains silent but B betrays A, A will serve three years in prison and B will be set free
- If A and B both remain silent, both of them will serve one year in prison (on the lesser charge).
Learn more about prisoners' dilemma here:
brainly.com/question/22597804
#SPJ4
