Equal Rights amendment, this amendment was proposed by National Organization for Women which aimed at bringing the following amendments as,
- "<em>Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United states or any state on account of sex</em>."
- "<em>The congress shall have the power to enforce, the provisions of this article through appropriate legislation.</em>"
- "<em>This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification</em>."
National Organization for Women was succeeded in passing it in the Congress in 1972, even this bill was also ratified by,
the then President Richard Nixon, but they were not so successful in passing it from the 38 states out of Fifty states of United States of America.
To know more about, women rights in U.S.A, <em>click here-</em>
brainly.com/question/8860769
<em> </em>
#SPJ4
The Declaration of Sentiments of 1848 was modeled after the Declaration of Independence.
Even the names of those documents are similar. The Declaration of Sentiments was a women's cause for equal rights which was based on the Declaration of Independence which states that 'all men are equal.' Well, that wasn't the exact truth given that women didn't have the same rights, which is why they were revolting.
The blending of greek and roman philosophies with christian ideas
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
