Answer:
Debra Medina claimed that nullification was possible by state laws that could neutralize federal laws. She based her claim on the 10th Amendment, which establishes that any power not constitutionally granted to the federal government can be held by the states.
Explanation:
The Constitution doesn´t enable the nullification of federal laws by the states, and several academics have stated that it could be illegal since the Supremacy Clause pronounces federal laws as the supreme national law. So nullification would overthrow the constitutional interpretation held for 200 years.
Let us also remember that Gov. Rick Perry, who supported nullification, had already skipped the nullification issue by starting a debate about secession. This debate is a reminder of the time when state rejection of racial integration had to be stopped by the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Answer:
heheheh i just took that test its a 100% heheheheh
Explanation:
Answer:
The North largely thought new states ought to be free, while the South largely thought those states ought to choose for themselves (which, in many cases, would likely lead to more slave states).
Explanation:
I don't know
Answer:
Stimulus generalization
Explanation:
Stimulus generalization in psychology, can be defined as an occurrence whereby an individual tends to respond to a stimuli the same way the individual responded to a previous similar stimuli.
For example, the painful experience on Jasmine's recent visit to the doctor who gave her a painful injection has made her to refuse going to the same doctor. Not only does Jasmine respond to this same doctor, but also responded in the same way towards any other doctor or dentist by refusing to see anyone of them.
Jasmine's refusal behavior is an example of <em>stimulus generalization.</em>
