1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
kramer
3 years ago
14

Help ASAP.. Brainliest + Thanks

History
1 answer:
Reptile [31]3 years ago
6 0
Well this is what i would put Of course, we could have lived cheaper, but we are both fond of good things and felt that we could afford them.

Some people who buy at the last of the market, when the men with the carts want to go home, can get things very cheap, but they are likely to be stale, and we did not often do that with fish, fresh vegetables, fruit, milk or meat. Things that kept well we did buy that way and got good bargains, and we found a factory where we could buy the finest broken crackers for 3 cents a pound, and another place where we got broken candy for 10 cents a pound
You might be interested in
When a prisoner pleads the Fifth (5th), what does that mean?
Jet001 [13]

Answer:

A. He/She does not want to testify against him/herself

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Describe the migration to south Texas in early 1990.
Aliun [14]

Answer:

During the 1990s, Texas again

exceeded expectations and grew by its

largest amount yet, adding almost 3.9 mil-

lion residents and surpassing New York as

the second most populous state. Many

immigrants and residents from other states

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Drag the correct labels to the table.
sergiy2304 [10]

Answer:

I think it might be

Surrounding seas allowed people to set up ports for trade.

The location near the sea allowed people to interact with other civilizations.

A lack of flat land made people dependent on trade to survive.

Explanation:

Edit: dont listin to me im wrong im pretty sure

8 0
3 years ago
Which of the following was an effect of the Vietnam War?
Kisachek [45]
The most likely answer is B) <span>Americans became more determined to free countries from communism. </span>
6 0
3 years ago
10 POINTS
netineya [11]

Answer:

Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.

Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.

Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.

However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.

Explanation:

nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was the expected role of a woman in the colonies?
    15·2 answers
  • What happened to the nations of the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s?
    11·2 answers
  • Many more people would vote if they believed:
    12·2 answers
  • Market, planned, and mixed are three basic types of _____. imperialism fascism economic systems political organizations
    9·2 answers
  • Which goods brought the least amount of revenue into Georgia in 2002? A) cotton B) cattle C)greenhouse D)chicken eggs
    8·2 answers
  • The missionaries of India brought Confucianism to China.<br><br> A.True<br> B.false
    6·2 answers
  • How did the changes in agriculture contribute to the development of the shang dynasty
    15·1 answer
  • Why is it important for americans to know how their federal government works?​
    7·1 answer
  • What characteristic made Thomas Aquinas a humanist?
    6·2 answers
  • When a country is reliant on other countries for products, manufactured goods or services, this is known as O international inte
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!