Answer:
There are three basic modes of constitutional interpretation: strict construction, aspirationalism, and textualism. The strict construction approach seeks to apply the Constitution according to what it says explicitly rather than based on desirable social consequences; the aspirational approach applies the Constitution based on societal standards regardless of whether it contradicts what it says, and the textualist approach looks only at the text of laws regardless of their effect on society.
The literal interpretation assumes that the US Constitution was set in stone by an all-knowing entity. If this is true, then what use are the amendments if one had already decided the outcome of every single dispute ever framed under them? The idea of being open to interpretation is so that new issues can be solved using old principles. Yes, some people may choose to "go rogue" with these principles come up, but I side with keeping my own freedoms limited for greater freedoms for others. And finally, aspirationalism takes into account that America's founding fathers wanted aspirations, not just laws. They would have understood that sometimes even they couldn't agree on moral solutions, and they knew times change over time.
I prefer strict aspirational because it takes into account social progress. The Constitution is meant to be a living document that isn't static, and the Constitution was written in a time when slavery, women's suffrage and segregation were still acceptable. The Constitution needs to evolve with society and make sense in modern times - interpretations.
The Constitution was written at a time when slavery was legal in America - aspirationalism would have been impossible back then. The Constitution works on interpretation - if it didn't, we wouldn't need it. Over time, we've developed aspirationalism to be able to interpret the Constitution more fairly. It's not what the Constitution says, it's how well society can agree to interpret that.
Explanation:
The modes of constitutional interpretation are two of the most popular ways in which constitutional law is interpreted. An aspirationalist judge would favor arguments that all legislation should follow the “original intent” of the constitution while strict constructionists follows the literal text of the constitution.
Answer:
Somewhere cold and isolated. Maybe Alaska.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can say the following.
How are various minority communities gaining political power?
The way minority communities are gaining political power is through organizing to formally express their opinions through advocating social issues concerning the necessities of these communities.
They are formally organized and using social media to express their messages, inviting people to join, donate, and participate in their political causes.
This way, they are strengthing their relationships and increasing the number of members that are actively participating. This allows them to have a specific weight or political presence that can pressure the government or other instances. That is the way many African American, Hispanic, Asian, and LGTB groups have increased their presence in US politics.
Case law is the body of prior decisions and precedents that have accumulated over time. Statutory law is made up of statutes, which are formal written laws/codes made by legislators.
According to FBI statistics, what is TRUE about gender and crime?
The answer is A
A.
Men are more likely to be arrested than are women.
B.
For property crimes, women are about twice as likely to be arrested than men.
C.
Men and women are arrested an equal amount of times for violent crimes.
D.
Law enforcement and society in general are more likely to view women as criminals. T
