Answer:
The correct answer is A. The dual functions of members of Congress most frequently lead to conflicts between the interests of voters in a particular state and the interests of all Americans.
Explanation:
Members of Congress, whether Representatives or Senators, have the function of representing the citizens of the states in which they were elected, within the legislative structure of the federal government. Therefore, they must primarily channel the interests of the citizens of their states in Congress, with the objective of meeting their needs and achieving the greatest benefits for them.
Now, on the other hand, they are members of the very structure of the federal government and as such they must consider the interests not only of the citizens of their states, but of the entire nation, with which they must have the common good for the entire country as their objective, regardless of the interests of its states.
Thus, a duality is generated, since many times the interests of the citizens of the state they represent are contrary to the interests of the other states or the federal government itself, with which congressmen have to have the ability to balance both interests seeking achieve the best possible result.
The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition. Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate.[1] Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court.[1] The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.
Senate cloture rules historically required a two-thirds affirmative vote to advance nominations to a vote; this was changed to a three-fifths supermajority in 1975. In November 2013, the then-Democratic Senate majority eliminated the filibuster for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court nominees by invoking the so-called nuclear option. In April 2017, the Republican Senate majority applied the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations as well,[2] enabling the nominations of Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to proceed to a vote.....
Hope this helps ;)
First Answer:
The socialism never found support among the people in United States due to small power of the workers Union. Also, companies have more political and financial power over their demands.
Second answer:
There could be more support for the homeless and poor people in big cities. Health care and some childhood protection against poverty might be another benefits from it.
Third answer:
The negative aspects we could imagine as the political power of unions increased among the workers. They would start attempting a coup across the country in order to start a social-communist regime. Another problem could be the increase in corruption, based on the good faith of the poor, that is, they could "buy votes" among the poor by threatening them with benefits' cut if the worker does not support them or does not vote for them.
