Answer:
After filing the first post-Janus First Amendment labor law challenge in the United States Supreme Court, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in support of a related challenge, Miller v. Inslee, that calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize that laws forcing recipients of government benefits to accept union representation are unconstitutional. As it did in its brief in Bierman v. Dayton, Buckeye argues that the lower courts have improperly exempted such “exclusive representation” schemes from scrutiny under the First Amendment.
“In its Janus ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court raised serious questions about the constitutionality of forced exclusive representation, and in three legal cases, The Buckeye Institute has outlined why it is unconstitutional to force public employees to be represented by unions that advocate against their interests,” said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute. “Like Buckeye’s clients, Katherine Miller—a Washington state childcare provider—should not be forced to speak through a government union with which she disagrees.”
The Miller case, brought by National Right to Work Foundation, raises similar claims to Buckeye’s cases—Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization, Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine, and Thompson v. Marietta Education Association—and challenges state laws which force individuals, in this case state childcare providers, to allow a government-designated union to speak for them.
Explanation:
Answer Some signs of impaired drivers are improper lane use, failure to signal, or unpredictable stopping and swerving of the car. These are just some of the signs that a driver may be impaired if you do see these signs on the road try to keep as much space possible between you and the car who demonstrates these signs.
Explanation:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is a historic court case that determined that the necessary and proper clause gave congress the implied power to enact legislation necessary to carry out the powers granted to them.
In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the state of Maryland did not have the authority to levy taxes against the Second Bank of the United States. This was due to the fact that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 to construct the Bank.
With what is perhaps Chief Justice John Marshall's strongest decision, McCulloch rejected the extreme states' rights arguments made by counsel for Maryland in resounding language while simultaneously giving Congress vast discretionary ability to effectuate the enumerated powers.
This result gave rise to the idea of Congress' implied authority in the Constitution, which holds that Congress has powers beyond those expressly enumerated in the United States Constitution, including powers that may assist such authorities in carrying out those expressly enumerated in the Constitution.
Learn more about McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)- brainly.com/question/20593754
Okay theres only 5 questions and 6 answers but i think 7 is E, 8 is D, 9 is B, 10 is F, 11 is A
Answer:
where is video you are making fool to us