Answer:
Explanation:
The size of a citizens' assembly is very deliberate and designed to capture a representative cross-section of the population in question.[16] The size will depend on the purpose, demographics, and population of the community the assembly aims to represent in order to capture statistical soundness. The citizens' assembly is relatively small in order to make it more manageable and to enhance the deliberative process.[10] Therefore, most Citizens' Assemblies consist of between 50 and 200 citizens.[18] In Ireland, the 2012-14 Convention on the Constitution was composed of 66 citizens, 33 representatives chosen by political parties, and a chairperson;[19] the subsequent recurring Citizens' Assembly for Ireland recruited 99 citizens reflecting the country's demographic diversity, and appointed an expert chairperson.[20] The 2019-20 Citizens' Assembly of Scotland consists of 100 citizens.[21] The 2020 Citizens' Climate Assembly UK consists of 110 members of the public.[22]
The system of checks and balances ensures that the federal government does not abuse the necessary and proper clause through the use of the judicial branch.
The judicial branch (aka Supreme Court) has the ability to rule federal laws/acts constitutional or unconstitutional. In other words, if Congress tries to overstep their boundaries in terms of what actions they can take, the Supreme Court can rule their actions unconstitutional. This ruling would prevent Congress from acting, as all US citizens regardless of political power must follow the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Americans believed the Monroe doctrine encouraged them to follow a policy of moral diplomacy.
Answer: when someone describes the United States as a “democratic republic” they are simply stating that we the citizens rule our government, that we have certain rights, and that we choose our representatives.
Should be right I hope
The case was brought by Mildred Loving (née Jeter), a woman of color, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, overruling Pace v. Alabama (1883)[2] and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S. and is remembered annually on Loving Day. It has been the subject of several songs and three movies, including the 2016 film Loving. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges
