The Supreme Court was affirming the point that states (not the federal government) should be in charge of the voting procedures in their states.The Supreme Court decision you're referring to, which invalidated pre-clearance conditions, was Shelby County v. Holder (2013). "Pre-clearance" meant that certain states, according to the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, had to get approval in advance from federal authorities for any changes they made to their state regulations regarding voting. That standard had been applied to several states because they had displayed discriminatory practice in their voting laws. The decision in Shelby County v. Holder held that the federal government could not keep applying that requirement on the basis of decades-old data.
I recently posted another answer on Shelby County v. Holder, which you can check out too. Read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/9069264#readmore
European power of France, Britain, Belgium and Netherlands were keen to take advantage of Africa's abundant natural resources including Gold, Silver, Minerals and even Slave labor.
Similarly, the Japanese knew they lived in a small piece of land which was resource-poor and isolated from the rest of the world.
By expanding and colonizing Asian countries, they wanted to take advantage of local resources which including abundant food and millions of people as slaves.
Answer:
B. Interpret the law
Explanation:
the police enforce the laws, the citizens carry out or follow the laws, and the legislature/government creates the laws
Answer:
Constitution expressly denies the national government the power to levy duties on exports; to take private property for public use without the payment of just compensation; to prohibit freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly; to conduct illegal searches or seizures; and to deny to any person accused of a crime
Explanation:
