Answer: Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states). Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).
Explanation:
Answer and Explanation:
The 14th amendment cannot be a violation of the concept of federalism, as federalism is in accordance with the concepts covered in the Bill of Rights and only allows for the separation and sharing of powers between state and federal governments if this does not hurt the concepts covered by the Bill of Rights. These concepts are strengthened with the 14th amendment and for this reason, we should not consider that this amendment could harm the concept of federalism.
The ability of a state to create its own laws must be maintained even if people can move from one state to another, because this allows states to organize and maintain order in their territories, independent of their inhabitants. In this case, the individual who is moving from state to state must adapt to the laws of the territory, so that he/she can remain in the place.
Answer:
<h3>True.</h3>
Explanation:
No doubt individuals who post content on social media cannot just 'blow off some steam' unless it is thoroughly researched or proven otherwise. In most cases, individuals who post contents online are held legally responsible if their contents or statements are misleading or defamatory.
However, they are not held legally responsible for any forms of criminal activity as publishing wrong contents or making defamatory statements usually fall under the purview of 'tort' or civil cases. The parties are also liable to be sued for libel or defamation in civil courts.
Answer:On January 12, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury requires that federal sentencing guidelines be advisory, rather than mandatory. 1 In doing so, the Court struck down a provision in law that made the federal sentencing guidelines mandatory 2 as well as a provision that permitted appellate review of departures from the guidelines. 3 In essence, the Court's ruling gives federal judges discretion in sentencing offenders by not requiring them to adhere to the guidelines; rather, the guidelines can be used by judges on an advisory basis. 4 As a result of the ruling, judges now have discretion in sentencing defendants unless the offense carries a mandatory sentence (as specified in law).
Explanation: :)
