Answer:
I would say it would be the Bill of Rights. I think this because the bill of rights list our amendmants and freedoms im
so super sry if im Ewrong but hope this helps have a good day
The Preamble to the Charter explicitly reaffirms "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small."
The first article establishes that one of the main objectives of the United Nations is to develop and promote "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction based on race, sex, language or religion".
Other provisions commit States to adopt measures with the United Nations to ensure universal respect for human rights.
1965; invalidated the use of any test or device to deny the vote and authorized federal examiners to register voters in states that had disenfranchised blacks; as more blacks became politically active and elected black representatives, it rboguth jobs, contracts, and facilities and services for the black community, encouraging greater social equality and decreasing the wealth and education gap
It increased the demand for slave labor to grow cotton.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
