The answer should be Arizona v. United States (2012). One of the main points brought up by this ruling was an Arizona state-law making it a crime for being unlawfully present in the United States. This made it more likely for a Hispanic person to be racially profiled by law enforcement.
I hope this helps! :)
The way the wagon is accelerating is to the left
Answer:
True.
Explanation:
Additives are food "additions" that are added to the food for certain reasons. These 'extra' ingredients may be natural or synthetic, depending on their source, and also be added intentionally or unintentionally.
Additives can be food additive or color additive. They are added to improve the taste, or preserve it longer, or to give it a better appearance, color, for safety, or for retention of freshness or taste, etc., among others. Such additives may or may not be intentionally added, and can be man-made or even from natural sources.
Thus, the correct answer is true.
Answer:
"Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power. Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I. A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances. The definition does not intrude on any presidential prerogative. The mechanisms chosen by Congress to enforce the provisions of the Resolution were reasonable in 1973 and, although matters have been complicated by the United States Supreme Court's decision late last Term in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, those mechanisms remain reasonable today."
Explanation:
