The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached, we can say the following.
The groups of invaders that made the most limited incursions in the Roman Empire were the Franks.
The Franks were one of the Germanic tribes that tried to incursion the Roman Empire territories. As it is said above, the Franks were not a tribe that repeatedly invaded the Roman Empire territory, but indeed had some incursions.
The Franks inhabited the territories of the Lower Rhine and some others lived next to the Ems River. They were known to be fierce warriors and determined people that invaded some other regions as was the case of modern-day Belgium and the North of France.
This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
Answer:
In that case, the Court ruled that the 1923 Texas state law was unconstitutional, because it allowed the state Democratic Party to racially discriminate. After the case, most Southern states ended their selectively inclusive white primaries.
Answer:
D
Explanation:
It is the Virginia Plan because of you look up Virginia plan you'll see that James Madison proposed it!
Answer:
Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.
Explanation:
