We pick question number 2.
Interest groups & political parties shape American politics in that both are powerful and influential groups that are led by smart leaders who have convictions and have tried to influence the public opinion of the American people throughout history.
Their presence has marked significant moments in important decisions that have shaped the history of the United States.
However, we have to say both groups are different in nature and use different techniques. Let's say they are different in nature.
> Political parties are formed by a group of people with similar approaches to political life and create platforms aimed to help the conditions of the citizens.
> The two most dominant political parties in the United States are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
> US citizens vote for their candidates to be their representatives in US Congress and create important laws based on people's needs and concerns.
> On the other hand, the main purpose of interest groups is to influence Congressmen to create the kind of legislation that can favor their political and economic interests.
> Many times, these interest groups hire the services of lobbyists to negotiate with legislators in Washington D.C.
Some examples of interest groups in the United States are:
- the American Bankers Association.
- the United Farm Workers of America.
- the National Association of Manufacturers.
Learn more about this topic here:
brainly.com/question/21671685?referrer=searchResults
Answer by YourHope:
Hi! :)
Which of these BEST describes the Salem Witch Trials of the late 1600s?
B) The witchcraft hysteria was short-lived with many people eventually being pardoned!
:)
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
Answer:
The revisionists argue that Japan was already ready to surrender before the atomic bombs. ... The sticking point for the Japanese was retaining the emperor in his position. It is unclear if they would have accepted the reduction of the emperor to a figurehead, as eventually happened after the war.The radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today is on a par with the extremely low levels of background radiation (natural radioactivity) present anywhere on Earth. It has no effect on human bodies.The article contains graphic images and details some people may find upsetting. The recorded death tolls are estimates, but it is thought that about 140,000 of Hiroshima's 350,000 population were killed in the blast, and that at least 74,000 people died in Nagasaki.
4, now covered by the New Safe Confinement, is estimated to remain highly radioactive for up to 20,000 years. Some also predict that the current confinement facility might have to be replaced again within 30 years, depending on conditions, as many believe the area cannot be truly cleaned, but only contained.
Trust me mark. me as brainliest trust me
