Answer:
Herbert Spencer's
Explanation:
Spencer became the representative sociologist in England who advocated for the evolutionary view of social change.
While August Comte and Durkeim radically formed different visions and models of how social changes impact, Spencer applied the term "social evolution" where he saw that at some times social unrest was inevitable and that a series of stages will lead to all societies to move from simple to complex arrangements.-
According to his ideas, societies resembled the primary organisms that at one stage had a simple structure, but with time complexity arose and evolution was a driving force much like the idea that Darwin had applied on living species.
In this view, all societies inevitably move towards higher and superior forms of being, as a natural consequence.
One reason some argue that campaign financing should be restricted it is because such a step can protect our democracy from being corrupted by big money. Allowing campaign financiers to spend as much money as they can will result in people with certain interests having control over government
The correct answer is C) intermediate scrutiny test.
A law that placed restrictions on courses girls could take in high school would be evaluated by the courts using the intermediate scrutiny test.
We are talking about the kind of test the Court uses to determine the constitutionality of a statute. When the members of the Court need to make a decision, this test is a tool they have to help them decide if a statute passed by the federal government or a state affects in a negative way some protected classes such as the case of the courses girls could take in high school.
The answer is: Conspicuous Consumption
Conspicuous consumption is the type of consumption that is not made to fulfill your basic needs to survive, it's made for sophistication or to increase your social status.
Jetting off to a remote destination for dinner is definitely very inefficient if the sole purpose is only to absorb necessary nutrients to your body. Sophistication or social status would most likely become the factors in such dinner activity.
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.
