Answer:
Check Explanation.
Explanation:
Currently, Texas is one of the largest state in the United States of America, second largest to be precise. But before they became a state in the United States of America they were once in Mexico.
Texas got their independence from Mexico to join the United States of America and the following are the reasons;
(1). Many people came from the United States and settled in Texas. As at that time, slavery is legal in the United States while it is not in Mexico. The people that came from the United States knew that one day, the Mexico government will seize their slaves, so they had to fight for independence.
(2). The need for Texas to be a state on its own.
(3). The numbers of American settlers are more than the native Texans.
(4). The belief called the "manifest destiny'' that is to say the United States of America should ''own" Mexico.
Answer and Explanation:
The Constitution itself establishes a representative democracy, or republic, not a pure democracy. In that sense, I guess you could say it's "undemocratic," although that word seems to have connotations about the electoral process that aren't exactly accurate.
The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about a majority rule changing fundamental laws. While they made the Constitution a flexible document that provided for the possibility of amending, it is an extremely laborious task to do so. The idea is that no temporary majority can significantly affect the rights and protections of the citizenry.
To a large extent, that changed with one critical writing. In 1905, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote the dissent in Lochner v. New York which established the concept of an "empty Constitution." That means that the prevailing legal theory to this day is that the Constitution does not in fact establish *anything* and in lieu of judicial precedent, the will of the people at any snapshot in time is effectively law. This is typically a leftist judicial outlook.
One of the biggest ironies of this decision is making it's way through the appellate courts right now: the California Prop 8 issue. Of course the leftists (rightfully) side with those who support gay marriage. However, if the case is to be decided in their favor, i.e. that a majority cannot vote away someone's right, it will be a repudiation of Holmesian doctrine. If the courts uphold the Holmesian standard, they will be forced to rule that the popular vote can, in fact, restrict rights of the people--in this case, the first amendment right of freedom of association.
Botswana<span>, </span>Namibia<span>, and South Africa.... </span>
Answer:
green
Explanation:
i heard it before but i hear liberal alot
The correct answer is B) presidential impeachment.
How might similar statements influence congressional action?
presidential impeachment.
Congress has the constitutional power of impeaching federal officials, including the United States President.
When federal officials commit a crime or act in an incorrect way the House of Representatives can initiate an impeachment process.
The impeachment process is the official mechanism to remove the President of the United States, the vice president or other government officials that are suspected of having committed any high crime, treason, or misconduct. If the House of Representatives approves by sole majority articles of impeachment, the matter is presented to the Senate. The Constitution provides the Senate with the sole power to try an impeachment process.
