D. They would provide jobs and homes to immigrants to get support out of them for money schemes
<span>The Supreme Court is most likely to be accused of judicial activism in cases involving: protection of individual rights.
Writing for the conservative group, <em>The Heritage Foundation</em>, Elizabeth Slattery defines judicial activism as "w</span><span>hen judges fail to apply the Constitution or laws impartially according to their original public meaning, regardless of the outcome, or do not follow binding precedent of a higher court and instead decide the case based on personal preference."
Cases involving individual rights are likely to elicit charges of judicial activism because the Constitution does not spell out each and every sort of right citizens may have. New questions come up that were not considered or specified at the time the Constitution was written. For instance, <em>Roe v. Wade </em>(1973) addressed the question of abortion and an individual's right to privacy. <em>Obergefell v. Hodges </em>(2015) addressed the legality of same-sex marriage. Both are cases of individual rights, where the Constitution did not give direct instruction on the issues at stake. The decisions on those issues, to allow abortion and to allow same-sex marriage, both are criticized by conservatives as instances of judicial activism.</span>
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
Answer:
One helpful statistic we can use is the amount of enslaved people per county, in the year 1860, just a year before the American Civil War.
Explanation:
This statistic can be used as a proxy to determine the counties were cotton had the highest production, because cotton was a cash crop grown in large plantations that were worked by enslaved African Americans.
Several counties had 80% or more slaves as percentage of the total population, meaning that they were overwhelmingly black. The majority of these counties were located in the Mississippi Delta, in the state of the same name, in the Black Belt of Alabama and Georgia, and in southern South Carolina.
