Answer:
"Inconsistency" seems to be the correct response.
Explanation:
- It might be because for someone else makes a decision and those whose intervention does not in itself follow the values, everything just indicates there's conflict throughout his words and deeds as well as his principles.
- This would be the justification that the second hypothesis seems to be inconsistent with people's perceptions and values.
We see many examples in recent years of minority groups joining together to feel an emotional sense of safety, but also in order to show power in numbers. LGBTQ+ protests began at Stonewall in the 60’s. Before it was a riot, it was a gay bar where gay people could interact with one and other and express themselves. Another example is in 2020 when we saw this sort of alliance building through widespread protest for black lives, and an explosion of black owned organizations built to protect black people.
Answer:
Im really confused with this one but im not really sure about this so here is my answer.
Explanation:
2:A im not really sure if im right so yea im sorry if im wrong its just that im not really good with court stuff.
The doctrine incorporation of the constitution is guaranteed through the first ten amendments.
Through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, certain provisions of the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights, are made applicable to the states under the incorporation concept. Both administratively and substantively, incorporation is applicable.
The Supreme Court determined that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government and to actions brought in federal courts before the doctrine (and the Fourteenth Amendment) were in place. The preamble to the Bill of Rights emphasizes the significance of the Bill of Rights in minimizing overreach by the newly constituted government.
Every state involved in the negotiations for the Constitution had varying degrees of worries with a too powerful Federal government. The Bill of Rights was obviously meant to place restrictions primarily on the federal authority, the Supreme Court ruled (see Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833)). States and state courts were free to enact such legislation at their discretion.
To learn more about The doctrine incorporation from given link
brainly.com/question/18601203
#SPJ4
