<u>Complete Question:</u>
An unanswered constitutional question about the judicial branch involves
A. who should approve judges and justices.
B. what “good behavior” means, with regard to judicial terms.
C. how a Supreme Court is created.
D. who should appoint judges and justices.
<u>Correct Option:</u>
B. what “good behavior” means, with regard to judicial terms.
<u>Explanation:</u>
"Good conduct" initially means "not bad behaviour" i.e. does not break the law. And as long as lawyers do nothing to catch them at any issue they will keep their circumstances alive. On a side note, I think this agreement was a stroke of genius by the creators.
The proof that judiciary can not be removed notes from the equation all perception of political retribution, indicating that the judge in question is easy to perform his rulings or comments without the fear of failing his work. The judiciary will actually do real things that it believes are.
It was not a ‘British’ reaction - there was divided opinion in Britain as to how to respond and even in Parliament there were some who were in sympathy with the growing colonial resistance to British taxes. The Prime Minister was not one of them. The Stamp Act was an attempt to recover some of the great cost that the French and Indian War had incurred. The Intolerable Acts were a response to the resistance that the Stamp Act had met with. The Stamp Acts was a tax intended to revenue. The intolerable Acts were intended to curtail the growing resistance- by the time of the Intolerable Acts legislation was no longer focused on raising revenue but was focused on the resistance that trying to raise revenue had met with
Explanation:
<em>Social justice also carries into the criminal justice process, even for offenders. ... Providing social justice to offenders lessens the likelihood of wrongful conviction of the innocent and biased actions against any group.</em>
If he has fully paid off the truck and doesn’t owe any payments then he owns the truck so it is his property.
I think