Supreme Court, is the highest court in the judicial system, and it is the last court for resolving non-constitutional matters.
The Supreme Court's affirmative action in the case of Regents v. Bakke by the following:
(B) Racial quotas were not used to make admissions decisions.
<h3>The Supreme Court's affirmative action in the case of Regents v. Bakke</h3><h3 />
- The supreme court on June 18, 1978, declared affirmative action constitutional but invalidate the use of racial qoutes.
- Allan Bakke, a white man of California, filed a complaint against The medical school at the University of California, Davis.
- He applied twice to the medical school and with good marks but didnt get admission.
- Bakke said he had been subjected to unjust "race discrimination."
- In the Court, six separate opinions were issued, agreed that the university’s use of racial quotas was unconstitutional, and ordered that the medical school admit Bakke.
Thus, option (B) Racial quotas were not used to make admissions decisions is correct.
To know more about Supreme Court, visit here:
brainly.com/question/1755400
Answer:
Neuropsychology
Explanation:
Neuropsychology is the field of study in which the activities of the brain and how these activities influence a person's behavior is studied. And, also, the effect of injuries and brain damages on a person's behavior is studied.
A person who studies the relationship between the brain and behavior is a neuropsychologist. He is a specialist who studies our complex brain system. And they focus on studying the cognitive function and behavior of a person whose brain is damaged or injured.
So, the correct answer is Neuropsychology.
Here is information for both perspectives:
Federalists
I would support the federalists because they believed in a strong central government that would help to unite the states. Along with this, the creation of a new stronger federal government would help to solve the problems America faced under its first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government could not tax or even raise an army. With the new US Constitution, the federal government would have these necessary powers in order to ensure safety within American society.
Anti-Federalists
I would support the Anti-Federalists because they were advocates of states rights. Along with this, the Anti-Federalists knew that a central government with too much power could very easily result in a monarchy, much like the one the United States experienced when controlled by Great Britain.
It does not. At least i don't think it does. <span />
