Answer:
c. Innate Characteristics of emotional expression.
Explanation:
Innate Characteristics of emotional expression are the universality of facial expressions emotions which are genetically determined and passed on from one generation to another.
There are certain factors that affect this facial expression, such as social and culture belief. These factors in most cases makes people not to expressed their emotion fully using the right facial expression.
Example, Men are expected to be strong and not to cry in the public, this belief can make a man who really needs to let out his emotion through crying to suppress it.
It is not all facial expression that are innate and universal.
Some can be learned and change based on situations.
Maybe you should draw a guy in a car buckling up and a sign saying click it or ticket
Just don’t take the drug in all honesty
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".[2]
The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the
plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After
review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not
unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3]
was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority
for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the
end of his opinion in this decision,[4]
Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's
responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary
consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as
instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
Answer: Freedom to elect members of Parliament, without the king or queen's interference. Freedom of speech in Parliament. Freedom from royal interference with the law. Freedom to petition the king.
Explanation:
