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
-Dominant- [34]
2 years ago
13

In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to place restrictions

on who electors can vote for. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?
History
1 answer:
Sergio039 [100]2 years ago
8 0

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to place restrictions on who electors can vote for.

I agree with this decision because voting in the Electoral College is a serious thing, and members of the college have to assume this important and serious role. That is why they are members of the Electoral College and expressed their intention to vote for the candidate they supported.

I think there would be no room for faithless electors in the US Electoral College. There is no reason for them to vote for other people if they originally pledge to vote for their candidates.

On July 6, 2020, the case of Chiafalo v. Washington was decided.

You might be interested in
The jews began migrating to palestine in the early 1900's for various reasons.
kykrilka [37]

Its just a fact. Can you please state the actual question? Thats how brainly works

7 0
2 years ago
Which of these is not something soldiers were expected to do when they were not fighting or migrating to another location?
seraphim [82]

<em> A.) Improving Roman infrastructures.</em>

<em>When they were moving to another location Roman soldiers did not have to improve on other Roman infrastructures they came upon along the way, because the building of the infrastructures was not organized by the Roman troops, more so they were organized by an architect and the architect's workers.</em>

<em>The reason I also chose A was because the Roman troops traveled in their groups and whenever they were injured it was up to them to man the camp hospitals to heal the wounded. Also recruiting more soldiers along the way was also very helpful to the Roman legion and allowed a much broader amount of soldiers that could be used for taking over land. Not to mention that soldiers (traveling strictly inside their troops) were responsible for feeding themselves (what I'm saying is that the troops were responsible for cooking and feeding each other I just used "themselves" as the word to describe it).</em>

<em>Since Roman soldiers traveled in groups they did not (I'm assuming here I don't know for sure) take women or other people along with them and they only took the amount of soldiers that were assigned by their higher ups. In other words Roman soldiers were really only expected to do as they were ordered to (in modern times any disobedience to what they were ordered to do would have resulted in them having it put on a disaplinary record, but they did not do that sort of thing during Roman times meaning that they punished the soldiers in ways that I don't factually now about). Basically the key importance in the Roman soldier was to carry out the order he received and complete the order quickly and efficiently. However, they did recruit soldiers along the way as they were instructed and that was to help them benefit for taking over land. The commanding officer was the one who told the Roman soldiers what to do when they were traveling (simple tasks, not the task assigned by the current ruler) and the soldiers were expected to complete it. A few of the tasks assigned by the commanding officer could have been to cook, preform healing measures, and recruit more soldiers.</em>

<em>Hope this helps.</em>

<em>-Northstar</em>

5 0
2 years ago
How did the last Mughal emperor live the last year of his life? class 8
Zinaida [17]

Answer:

The last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar was tried in court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Bahadur Shah Zafar died in the Rangoon jail in November 1862.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
How did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 affect racial segregation at public colleges and universities?
azamat
I think its C.Helped end segregation by restaurants near public colleges
4 0
3 years ago
Who was Admiral Chester Nimitz?
Nezavi [6.7K]

Answer:

Chester William Nimitz, Sr. was a fleet admiral of the United States Navy. He played a major role in the naval history of World War II as Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and Commander in Chief, Pacific Ocean Areas, commanding Allied air, land, and sea forces during World War II.

6 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • One result of the rapid settlement of Western
    7·2 answers
  • The purpose of plating in the establishment of early settlement was to?______
    14·1 answer
  • What American urban movement was established to assist the poor?
    14·1 answer
  • Why did the US stay out of WW2 at first?
    6·1 answer
  • Compare the ways that European nations, other than Russia, moved away from communist rule.
    8·1 answer
  • What did the Little Rock nine undertake?
    8·1 answer
  • Which equation is shown by the model?​
    7·2 answers
  • Which phrase best completes the diagram? Achievements of Postclassical China Created sophisticated art and calligraphy Experienc
    7·2 answers
  • The statement below is from a congressional document, July 27, 1974. . "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his t
    10·1 answer
  • Why is freedom of the press important?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!