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
svet-max [94.6K]
3 years ago
15

10 POINTS

History
1 answer:
netineya [11]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.

Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.

Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.

However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.

Explanation:

nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx

You might be interested in
Please help me with my question and id k how to do this please help
dem82 [27]

Answer:

“The White Man’s Burden” presents the conquering of non-white races as white people's selfless moral duty. This conquest, according to the poem, is not for personal or national benefit, but rather for the gain of others—specifically, for the gain of the conquered. The white race will “serve [their] captives’ need” rather than their own, and the white conquerors “seek another’s profit, / And work another’s gain.” Even if they do not recognize their benefit, the non-white races will be brought “(Ah, slowly!) toward the light,” escaping the “loved Egyptian night” in which they idled before their conquest. Yet the non-whites’ positive sentiment for their own “darkness” indicates the extreme difficulty whites will face in seeking to educate the conquered peoples.

By emphasizing the hardships of this "burden," the speaker positions himself as a realist who sees all the difficulties of an imperialist project and the inevitable thanklessness that results. The speaker announces that imperial conquest will “bind your sons to exile” and cause them to “wait in heavy harness” in pursuit of the “savage wars of peace,” indications of the difficulty and tedium of the inevitable war. The “silent, sullen peoples” lifted up from “bondage” will never offer the imperialists any thanks or praise.

By taking the difficulty and thanklessness of imperialism seriously, the speaker establishes his credibility as someone of clear-sighted judgement. This stance of realism offers the speaker’s argument two key things. First, it staves off the retort that the speaker is some idealist blinded by an impossible dream. The speaker’s focus on the difficulty of the task actually has the effect of making that task seem, eventually, achievable, since all the difficulties have already been foreseen. Second, it sets up the speaker (and the European powers the speaker seems connected to) as a kind of stern, realist father figure to America who will offer Americans true respect—“the judgement of your peers” both “cold” and “edged with dear-bought wisdom”—if they fulfill their imperialist task.

Indeed, the poem in many ways appeals to the middle-class virtues of ordinary turn of the 20th century Americans by presenting imperialism as a sober, tedious duty rather than a grand adventure of conquest. Imperialism is a “toil of serf and sweeper,” not a “tawdry rule of kings.” The larger part of “the white man’s burden” is thus an exercise in “patience,” accepting the length and difficulty of the task set for the imperialists. Not a calling to a high heroic destiny, but a crude, almost homely task, imperialism suits the desires of those who imagine themselves honest workers on humanity’s behalf, rather than triumphant conquerors of weaker peoples. Put another way, the poem can be seen as cannily playing to the vanity of America precisely by refusing to play to its vanity. The poem is saying to an America that, in 1899, was feeling itself ready to emerge on the world stage: this is how you can stop being a child and grow up.

While the speaker of “The White Man’s Burden” can be seen as trying to cannily build an argument that will specifically appeal to a certain set of Americans, it also seems possible that the speaker is not being purely cynical. The speaker seems to believe everything he is saying: that imperialism and colonialism is a thankless task, taken up by whites purely out of goodwill for other races (even if those other races lack the ability to see the gift being bestowed upon them), without any ulterior motive of profit, reward, praise, or even gratitude. This enterprise may not even succeed; references to the task’s difficulty far outnumber references to its success. Thus even as the speaker believes it is the white man's duty to engage in conquest, he may also believe that this conquest will fall short of its moral goals. Imperialism, the speaker sincerely believes, is the white man’s gracious sacrifice on behalf of non-whites.

Explanation:

all of that^ is basically a theme of colonialism and imperialism, hope it helps:)

3 0
3 years ago
What were the reasons behind the fall of the Arab Empire
nekit [7.7K]
A possible reason was the attacks on them by crusaders and mongols around the 11th and 12th centuries. Another reason could have been the Arab rulers removing taxes from non Muslims and doing other things that hurt there income.
6 0
4 years ago
To what extents was the Australia's assimilation<br>Policy during<br>the 1930s brutal and inhumane​
mel-nik [20]

Explanation:

Assimilation system ensures that all Aborigines and portion are determined to produce the same standard of living as other Australians and reside as members of a particular Australian population, with the same rights and protections, acknowledging the same customs, and being significantly affected by the very same belief systems as other Australians.

3 0
3 years ago
2. What was the northwest ordinance
kherson [118]
2. It was a government for for the northwest territory, provided a method for admitting new states in the union from the territory.
3. The problem was that the Articles of Confederation were too weak to do anything, couldn't enforce any laws.
4. Federalist, Democratic-Republican 
5. The acts added new powers to deport foreigners and made it harder for new immigrants to vote.
6. He was fourth Chief Justice, helped with Judicial Review
6 0
4 years ago
When the AIDS crisis emerged in the early 1980s
sp2606 [1]
Ken Horne was a resident of San Francisco and is reported to be the first to have it
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Where had Grant been posted in the army before the war that depressed Opoints
    5·1 answer
  • What major contribution did confucius make to the cultural development in china
    8·1 answer
  • Locke’s Two Treatises of Civil Government brought forth the ideas of social contract and the _[blank]_ of man.
    10·1 answer
  • Did the Dutch republic allow calvinists to worship there
    14·1 answer
  • Identify and describe the three types of<br> government in the English Colonies.
    5·1 answer
  • How does the yellow river affect the way people live
    10·1 answer
  • What is one similarity between the women's suffrage movement and the Civil Rights movement?
    12·1 answer
  • What were Pope Urban Il's goals for the Crusades?​
    12·1 answer
  • 1. Conflicts continue between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, a region that is
    10·1 answer
  • How committed to secession was the general society in Louisiana?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!