It was dedicated to the city's patron deity Athena.
Answer:
The Constitution of the Roman Empire was an unwritten set of guidelines and principles passed down mainly through precedent.[1] After the fall of the Roman Republic, the constitutional balance of power shifted from the Roman Senate to the Roman Emperor. Beginning with the first emperor, Augustus, the emperor and the senate were theoretically two co-equal branches of government. In practice, however, the actual authority of the imperial Senate was negligible, as the emperor held the true power of the state. During the reign of the second emperor, Tiberius, many of the powers that had been held by the Roman assemblies were transferred to the
# be careful#
Answer:
D
Explanation:
The war techinaclly never ended, they just made a promise to one another to stop shooting for a few years.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The question does not include options. We do not know the name of the individuals you are referring to. You also did not mention what period in the history of the US you are referring to.
So although your question is incomplete, we can help you answer in the following general terms.
We assume you are referring to the Progressive era in the United States history from the 1880s to the 1920s.
During this era, many reformers demanded changes in US politics and economics. After many injustices lived during the Gilded Age, muckraker journalists exposed the corruption activities of many legislators and politicians. The federal government created legislation to stop this situation and also created laws to eliminate monopolies in the economy.
So we can say that reformers built a foundation to change the political and economic scene in the US, as well as society.
Answer: Appointing judges to the court.
Explanation: Firstly, enforcing a law doesn’t really limit the power of the judicial branch because they can simply strike down the law if it’s unconstitutional. Secondly, the President does not have the power to approve judicial nominations. That is only the Senate’s job. The President can appoint or nominate them, but the Senate is the one who approves.
Also, vetoing laws doesn’t limit the Judicial Branch’s power really in any way. Now, the correct answer is: Appointing judges / justices to the courts. This is because this power can not be limited at all by the judicial branch, only by congress. The Senate can deny the confirmation / appointment of a President’s appointee, and the Congress can also impeach that appointee later on for committed high crimes. The Judicial Branch can’t do any of that. The President can limit the Judiciary’s power by appointing judges that will go against any potential agenda of the Judicial Branch. For instance, if there happens to be liberal Supreme Court, whereas a majority of the members of the Supreme Court identify as liberal or were appointed by a Democratic President, a Republican President may want to nominate / appoint a conservative Justice or Justices to cancel out their majority and re-take the majority of the court. Honestly, this was a poorly worded question (not your fault at all, but the person who wrote it) because this doesn’t limit the power of the Judicial Branch in terms of its constitutional structure and powers, it merely limits and restricts the narrative or agenda of the members of the branch. Anyway, your answer is B: Appointing judges to the court.
