Answer:
plessy vs. ferguson was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities as long as the segregated facilities were equal in quality – a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal".
Explanation:
The false statement about the Confederate draft was that B. it was supported by all classes as a necessity.
<h3>What was the Confederate draft?</h3>
The Confederacy imposed the first binding draft in American history to get soldiers to fight the Civil War. The age limits were mostly between 18 and 35 for most of the war.
Not everyone supported the draft though especially as there was a tendency for rich slave owners to avoid it by hiring substitutes.
In conclusion, option B is correct.
Find out more on the Confederate draft at brainly.com/question/7253094.
I believe that the most fitting answer for this question would be prosecuting "trusts," or monopolies, that were in violation of the federal Anti-Trust law. During the Progressive Era, or 1900 to 1917, trust-busting efforts were very prevalent. Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson were especially adamant about trust-busting. Hope this helps.
Answer: Appointing judges to the court.
Explanation: Firstly, enforcing a law doesn’t really limit the power of the judicial branch because they can simply strike down the law if it’s unconstitutional. Secondly, the President does not have the power to approve judicial nominations. That is only the Senate’s job. The President can appoint or nominate them, but the Senate is the one who approves.
Also, vetoing laws doesn’t limit the Judicial Branch’s power really in any way. Now, the correct answer is: Appointing judges / justices to the courts. This is because this power can not be limited at all by the judicial branch, only by congress. The Senate can deny the confirmation / appointment of a President’s appointee, and the Congress can also impeach that appointee later on for committed high crimes. The Judicial Branch can’t do any of that. The President can limit the Judiciary’s power by appointing judges that will go against any potential agenda of the Judicial Branch. For instance, if there happens to be liberal Supreme Court, whereas a majority of the members of the Supreme Court identify as liberal or were appointed by a Democratic President, a Republican President may want to nominate / appoint a conservative Justice or Justices to cancel out their majority and re-take the majority of the court. Honestly, this was a poorly worded question (not your fault at all, but the person who wrote it) because this doesn’t limit the power of the Judicial Branch in terms of its constitutional structure and powers, it merely limits and restricts the narrative or agenda of the members of the branch. Anyway, your answer is B: Appointing judges to the court.
