Answer:
One of the roles of Federal courts is to review cases that have been appealed in the state courts, Option A.
Explanation:
Federal courts hear many cases like the cases which involve constitutionality of a law. There may be cases which involves treaties of public ministers or Ambassadors, disputes between two or more states can also be resolved by federal courts.
In 1950s, though the Constitution had stated that everyone is equal but still African Americans were not always treated equally. Federal courts could take cases that have been appealed in state courts, in case the concerned person is not happy with the result.
“Disadvantages. In the first years of a new nonprofit, it may seem counterproductive to implement term limits for board members. Serving on the board of a start-up nonprofit that lacks resources is rarely prestigious and is typically labor intensive since most start-ups lack staff. It can be difficult to find qualified directors who possess the requisite passion for the cause, understanding of the mission, and willingness to work. Another disadvantage of term limits is that the organization will spend more time and resources to recruit and educate new directors and will lose the group cohesion that comes with directors who have worked together for a long time. Additionally, the organization may lose directors who are fervent supporters of the organization and the mission.
Advantages. While the above points may lead incorporators to create a board without term limits, it is important to remember that there are also many positive aspects of term limits that may outweigh the negative aspects. For example, an organization with term limits may be better able to attract active and involved members of the community who are not able to make a long term commitment to the organization. Term limits allow busy executives and community leaders to serve the organization and bring fresh new ideas that they may not otherwise have been able to share had they been required to make a longer-term commitment.”
Answer:
It provided a way to check the powers of congress and president. Before this ruling, there was no checks and balances.
Explanation:
The 1803 Supreme court case of Marbury v. Madison was an important decision that helped shape the way the powers of the state, as well as the federal government, are dealt with. This event established the case for a judicial review, thereby bringing it for the very first time in the history of the US Supreme Court.
With the case involving the powers of the outgoing and incoming presidents, and the validity of the state and federal powers, the decision laid the groundwork for how the powers of the Congress and the president are limited to. This brings forth the legality of the federal courts to declare any legislation unconstitutional, bringing the step to check exercise of powers. Before this, there had never been checks or balances for the powers of the federal sector.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
This is because the Indian constitution is the foundation of all courts and law and the functioning of the court is based on the Indian constitution.
