The answer is most likely A, it was the first case the went against the "concept of judicial review"
There has been a debate about border control. Donald Trump wants to take action through buidling a wall along the border but the democrats do not want this. This creates a policy gridlock, where no policy is passed due to each party not wanting the other party to get its way.
I think its A. I'm not entirely sure but it does seem most logical.
<u>Anyways a big reason that these powers are limited is to keep society in a stable place. Tyranny brought onto any civilization over the years has led to its downfall. This balance helps keep both the government and its people under equal terms. </u>
Its not B. because this would allow tyrant rulers to keep their position putting everyone else at a disadvantage to please themselves. This simply doesn't make sense if you were to limit the government.
C. isn't a possibility either because each government only governs over said region.
D. can also be justified under my response to B. since it has the same meaning yet is worded differently/ or relates to more modern leaders I suppose.
Anyways, I hope I was helpful and good luck :D
Answer:
Van Buren, who regarded himself as a disciple of Thomas Jefferson, was a member of the Jeffersonian faction of the Republican Party. He supported the doctrine of states' rights, opposed a strong federal government, and disapproved of federally sponsored internal improvements.
Explanation:
Answer:I believe the main purpost was to decide the fate of the Jewish people.
Explanation:
I hope I can help you :)
