Answer:
The answer is National Security argument
Explanation:
In this question, the woman is arguing on the basis of national security as the over-reliance on foreign countries for something as important as one used in making weapons for defense does not appeal to her. From her point of view, she does not argue from an "unfair competition" point of view, neither is she arguing because she is a little player in the industry. Her point is valid as it is a threat to national security to depend on the purchase of a very important item that is used in the manufacture of weapons for defense.
The sediments along the side of the stream are called ALLUVIUM.
The alluvium, or loose sediment along the side of a stream, are comsidered to be an example of BOTH erosion, or the wearing down of soil, AND transport, the movement of soil.
Answer:
On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty
When a group of people gather for common practice, activities and interests, they are make up society. Such people start to exchange experiences and views on interests, activities and practices, they can associate, work on, improve and create a community of common interests and preferences. When society's development over common interests reaches a high level, then a highly developed society, which in this way leaves a certain significance and trace in history, is a civilization.
Answer:
They protect justices from political pressure.
Explanation:
The justices' main role is to evaluate laws and decide on cases between two or more parties according to the law. They hold hearings, discuss the cases and come to a conclusion. And in order to impartially carry this task, they are given lifetime appointments so that they do not feel pressured to gain people's vote when running for re-election and the pressure to determine cases based on what people would like. Instead, they are expected to decide cases objectively, according to the law.
