Spartans feared the Messenians because of thier wealth and for thier influence in other cities.
So big picture, selective incorporation, it's the doctrine where judicial decisions incorporate rights from the Bill of Rights to limit laws from states that are perceived to infringe on those rights, and the justification comes from the 14th Amendment. It refers to the legal doctrine the U. S. Supreme Court has employed over the years to extend the rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution to the states. Through selective incorporation, the Court has ruled that states may not pass laws restricting many of the important rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Selective incorporation is a doctrine written into the Constitution that protects American citizens from their states' enacting of laws that could infringe upon their rights. Selective incorporation is not a law, but a doctrine that has been established and confirmed time and again by the United States Supreme Court.
The idea of selective incorporation dates to when the Constitution was being drafted, with the founding fathers heatedly debating the power of state governments versus the power of the federal government. In the end, the Constitution was signed and enacted without any definitive conclusion on the issue.
In the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, meaning that states were able to pass their own laws violating the Bill of Rights without any intervention by the federal government. It wasn't until 1868 that Congress passed the 14th Amendment, forbidding states from denying anyone the freedom to life, liberty, and property without due process, thus reversing the decision of Barron v. Baltimore. Beginning in the 1920s, the Supreme Court ruled on many cases about the protection of the Bill of Rights within state laws. Selective incorporation is based on this approach to choosing which clauses of the Bill of Rights apply to state governments. As the Supreme Court continued to rule on cases challenging state governments' ability to violate the Bill of Rights, justices began to debate the application of the 14th Amendment. Some felt that the amendment applied to the all amendments in the Bill of Rights, prohibiting states from the same violations as the federal government, while others felt that only portions of those basic rights should be incorporated.
In the 1937 case of Palko v. Connecticut, the Court rejected total incorporation and adopted the doctrine of selective incorporation as well as the guidelines for applying it.
HOPE THIS HELPS :)
Answer:
The Warren Court made decisions regarding segregation and civil liberties. The most famous court decision was Brown v. Board of Education which ended school segregation in America and began a wave of desegregation decisions. These decisions created uproar in the South and cause military intervention at times. Miranda v. Arizona was another famous Warren Court decision which better defined the Fifth Amendment and how a person must be informed on their rights when arrested. These cases were often racial in nature redefining civil liberties and due process of the law.Yes the Warren Court did exceed its boundaries in issuing some of its decisions during the 1960s. For example the court gave its decision regarding women suffrage and it was not taken well by many women of that time. Many women were forced to suffer the consequences of the decision given by the Warren Court in regards to women's suffrage.The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a joint resolution which the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964. It gave power to the president to use conventional military force without declaration of war. It basically gave more power to the president then checks and balances allow. In this case for the given question let us assume that it was the executive branch that had taken fore step and became more powerful. If such had happened the power resting upon the head of the society or the president would increase and the chances of being mistake in due to the presence of human emotions and flaws would come into action. The decisions taken by the agencies would be biased and hence the laws that would be made would not necessarily benefits the society. When the US Constitution was written, the States feared a strong Federal Government. Because of the three branches system the US Constitution created a new system that revolutionized Constitutions around the world: the Checks and Balances system. The Checks and Balances system is a system that the US Constitution created to give powers to each of those three branches to limit the power of the other branch. Each branch has typical and atypical powers, and those atypical powers are the ones that are used to limit the typical powers of other branches. Because of that, if any of the three branches exceeds its authority the other branches have the power to stop this power and return the thing to status quo ante. Example of this atypical powers is: The Power of Veto the President has, the Impeachment Power of the Congress and Power the judicial branch has to declare a law unconstitutional. As you can notice, the Constitution created a system that autoregulates itself so that power and democracy are stable. The Warren Court has caused social change but one thing that the warren court has impacted positivily is that it broadened the individual rights of accused criminals. yes there is ups and downs to the warren court and it was a big thing in the 19th century but remembering on how of a impact it was has gave us importance today because any case that had segregation and enough evidence was presented, then a law for segregation would be unconstitutional.
Explanation:
Answer: Archaeologists have found evidence that paleolithic people traveled around in small, foraging bands that were basically egalitarian. Because they had no consistently reliable source of food, they were almost always on the move.Aug 12, 2014
Explanation:
Answer:lobbiests
ExplanThey are paid to convince any one of any thingation:
