The biggest factor is that tons of people migrated to South America from Spain and Portugal--bringing their language, their customs, their culture, etc., with them. They then assimilated into the existing native cultures down there--sometimes peacefully, sometimes through war and domination--which resulted in a huge and very diverse mix of people from many parts of the world. Look up topics like "Spanish migration to South America," "Portuguese migration to South America," as well as "Spanish and Portuguese cultural influence in South America..." Also, remember worldatlas.com that I told you about--look up a few South American countries, and see the history of immigration into those countries. Hope this helps!
He believes it was ignorance. Farmers in Jefferson's time where valuable because they fed the nation.
This of course is still true and what makes them valuable today as well.
Farmers in Jefferson's time where often wealthy and highly educated as well this made them valuable.
Today we have many professions that have educated people doing them and education is the most valuable commodity in a citizen because an educated citizen makes good choices in their vote.
Im for sure rivers and mountains.
Answer:
1) the prejudice in this country, or the corona
2) you will have to answer this one, it's a personal question
1) it emphasis the fact that these problems are not just a one man problem, it's all of us as a unity
2) to unify the people and to get her point across
3) again, personal question
1) there is too much i could say for this one so i am just going to give topics
- the way the virus was handled
- prejudice of all kinds
- debt
2) to try our best to do every little thing to help make this country a better place for all people
I hope this helped. :)
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
