<em><u>
The answer is</u></em>: <u>Protection against double risk is not a fundamental right and, therefore, is outside the constitutional protection</u>.
Explanation:
The Supreme Court confirmed Palko's second conviction. I<em>n its majority opinion, Cardozo formulated principles that were to direct the actions of the Court during the next three decades. He pointed out that some guarantees of the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of thought and expression, are fundamental, and that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment absorbed these fundamental rights and applied them to the states</em>. Protection against double danger was not a fundamental right. <em>Palko died in the Connecticut electric chair on April 12, 1938.
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em><u>
The answer is</u></em>: <u>Protection against double risk is not a fundamental right and, therefore, is outside the constitutional protection</u>.
The founding fathers of the US Constitution strongly feared and had a distrust in a strong central government. The framers of the Constitution added the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights to emphasize the limited power of the central government.
They firmly believed in establishing federalism as they wanted the power and liberty to be directly in hands of the states and the people. Thus, the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that <u>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."</u>
The 2018 U.S. National Climate Change Assessment reported that "increases in greenhouse gases and decreases in air pollution have contributed to increases in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1970."
A good reason for this would be that they also did trade with other cultures at the time. This in effect meant that they were exposed to different cultures to which they could adapt and absorb certain aspects of these cultures.
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that in this scenario Ava's claim is known as a counter claim. This term refers to a claim made in order to prove that a previous claim made against you is false. In this case Daniel made a claim against Ava, and Ava is rebutting that claim by stating that Daniel breached the contract, therefore making his claim void.
