1:women are very important to human society
2:they help us with our everyday life
3:they teach us lessons
4:if they weren’t alive the world wouldn’t thrive
Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
I think it would be the treaty of Paris in 1763?
Answer:
6
Explanation
General Washington fought in 17 battles in the Revolutionary War, winning 6 of the battles, losing 7 of them, and fighting to a draw in 4 battles.
Answer:
The difference between the Articles of Confederation and Constitution is that the Articles of Confederation are the rules that were agreed by the United States of America in the 18th century whereas the constitution is the rules that democratic countries and other legalized institutions develop to implement law and order in their body.
Explanation:
The difference between the Articles of Confederation and Constitution is that the Articles of Confederation are the rules that were agreed by the United States of America in the 18th century whereas the constitution is the rules that democratic countries and other legalized institutions develop to implement law and order in their body.
