Correct answer:
<h2>Limited government</h2>
The 10th Amendment puts limits on the powers of the federal government. It reserves powers for the states (and for the people themselves) any powers not specifically designated to the federal government in the United States Constitution. Any laws and powers exercised by the states still must be in accord with what is stated in the US Constitution, however.
For some historical context, we might also consider that the original framers of the US Constitution thoughts that statements such as the 10th Amendment -- and all of the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights -- were already inherent in the Constitution as it was written. They had composed a constitution that intentionally placed limits on the federal government. So, stating such a limit in an amendment seemed like a repetition of what was already apparent in the Constitution itself. As noted by the National Constitution Center, "The Constitution’s Framers thought that a bill of rights was appropriate for an unlimited government, but not for a limited one like the national government created by the Constitution. The Constitution accordingly sought to secure liberty through enumerations of powers to the government rather than through enumerations of rights to the people."
Nevertheless, to assure those who wanted the rights of the people specifically listed and protected, Amendments 1 through 10 were added to the Constitution as a Bill of Rights to affirm those protections.
Self-report data asks respondents to reveal illegal activity in which they have been involved, to which they are able to plead the 5th in order to not incriminate themselves, the risk in which being they place automatic suspicion upon themselves
Gilded Age is a period in American history at the end of the nineteenth century, more precisely from the 1860's-70's until about 1896-1900. The period was characterized by a glitter on the surface, while below was corruption. Changes that took place in this period had the most significant impact on women's lives and city growth. With the growth of cities and urbanization, modernism is emerging, which is manifested in everyday life, especially in the middle and upper classes. Women besides the role of housewife are increasingly appearing in the public and taking part in social activities, as a sign of improving the status of women, but also as a symbol of personal status of class and modernism. At the same time, it leads to increased attention, which is directed at the behavior of women in the public, from how they were dressed, to the degree of freedom of behavior, and there was the possibility of being characterized as inadequate behavior. Nevertheless, women's rights, in addition to "superficial" changes, also included an increasing presence in education and public life, whether it was campaigning for social change or for the right to vote, as well as issues of reproductive rights. A class of working women appeared, so in addition to symbolic changes, there is also an influential corpus when it comes to deciding and contributing to changes.
1. You could contact The U.S. Army or Navy. We normaly jump into most conflicts anyway.hope this helps!
Answer:
<h2>direct democracy</h2><h2>Issues and controversies</h2><h2>Discussions on direct-democratic institutions deal with several issues. The strongest normative grounds for direct democracy are the democratic principles of popular sovereignty, political equality, and all the arguments for participative democracy that support the idea that all citizens should have the right not only to elect representatives but also to vote on policy issues in referenda. Since assembly democracy cannot be an option in modern societies (outside Switzerland), direct-democratic institutions are regarded not as a full-scale alternative to representative democracy but as a supplement to or counterweight within democratic systems with major representative features. Nevertheless, the institutional difference and competition between representative and direct-democratic processes lie at the core of the controversy whether direct democracy contributes to undermining representative democracy or can offer enrichments of democracy.</h2>
<h3>Explanation:</h3>
<h3>correct me if I'm wrong</h3><h3>please brainless my answer</h3>
