Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".[2]
The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the
plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After
review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not
unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3]
was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority
for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the
end of his opinion in this decision,[4]
Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's
responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary
consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as
instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
I am going to take into consideration the 1st. Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It is true that the federal government must often balance protecting individual liberties and providing for order and security. We have seen how, at times, priority is given to one over the other, depending on the circumstances.
However, according to my thinking and belief systems, the federal government should always place more emphasis on protecting individual liberties. Just when the exceptional case is necessary, then the federal government must provide for order and security.
As stated in the 1st. Amendment, citizens must always have their freedom of speech and freely express what they believe is right; this includes reasonable critics of the economic and political systems, as well as to highlight positive attributes too.
Respecting the differences has always been a trademark for true democracies.
It is understandable that in times of conflict, as was the case of WWI and WWII, the government has put restrictions on certain liberties.
Some would say that the September 11 attacks justify the creation of the type of surveillance the government placed on the citizens, but that is when a fine line was crossed between protection and "espionage" without the consent of the citizens.
Answer: <em>Role Fixation </em>
Explanation:
From the given case/scenario we can state that this an example of role fixation. Role fixation is known as or referred to as acting out or portrayal of specific role and thus the role alone irrespective of what the circumstance or situation might ask or require. Role fixation under a decision making group can tend to occur or take place when an individual will move from a group to another.
Answer:
Explanation:
Not sure about the first question (not taking classes about this) but the second question the answer is the third option!
Hope you find the first question!
Answer: COMPACT DEVELOPMENT.
Explanation: Compact development can be defined as a form of development that involves efficient use of land through higher-density planning, creative and intensive site, neighborhood and district design.
As can be deduced from the definition, it can be clearly observed that this is not a problem in its own as it seeks for efficient use of land in urban development.
It is based on an efficient public transport system and has an urban layout which – according to its advocates – encourages walking and cycling, low energy consumption and reduced pollution
