1.Disclosure of campaign spending limits the amount of money that can be donated to campaigns and therefore limits corruption.
2.19Amendment
3.A civic duty is required by law, while a civic responsibility is a good thing to do for society.
4.lowered the voting age from 21 to 18
5.I give my loyalty to the United States
Hope this helps, Good luck
This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
Generally speaking, rules that have the force of law are called "<span>a. mandates," although it should be noted that this could be interpreted as "executive orders" depending on the circumstances and country. </span><span />
Answer:
I think the answers are
A. A state can keep ships of war in time of peace.
D. A state can enter into any agreement with a foreign power
B. A state can engage in war
Explanation:
I hope this helps!
B is debatable because A state can't engage in a war without the consent of congress unless it is being invaded or in danger.
