Social Studies, 22.07.2019 02:50 joebossmc2184

What was the purpose of checks and balances in the us government? why were these checks and balances needed? give specific examples. what was the purpose of the bill of rights? do you think the bill of rights succeeded in protecting the rights of everyone? explain why or why not.

Answers: 1

Show answers

Answers

Hello!

Checks and balances is the term that is used to describe the purpose for the separation of powers in the United States Government. The separation of powers means that the government is separated into three branches:
- Executive branch: includes the president and his workers.
- Legislative branch: includes the Senate and House of Representatives
- Judicial branch: includes the courts
These branches all serve their own purposes in the government. Checks and balances mean that they each balance each other. Because the branches are separated, they each control the amount of power that the other branches have. This prevents one branch from gaining too much power and becoming destructive.

The Bill of Rights is simply the first 10 Amendments in the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights grants specific rights to all citizens, and nobody can be deprived of them regardless of race, gender, etc. I believe that the Bill of Rights has, in fact, protected the rights of everyone. Anybody who deprives another of his/her rights can be fined. All people have these constitutional rights and they are free to exercise them.

I hope this helps you! Let me know if you have any additional questions. Have a fantastic day!

Answer from: agpraga23ovv65c

The separation of powers and system of checks and balances limit the power of the government. However, at the time of writing the Constitution, not everyone agreed that these limits were enough. For the Constitution to take effect, at least nine states had to ratify or approve, it. Each state held its own convention to vote on ratifying the Constitution.

Federalists were a group of people who supported the ratification of the Constitution and a strong national government. Anti-Federalists were a group of people who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They argued over the structure of the Constitution during the Constitutional Convention and in the months that followed.

This map shows the support for the Constitution by areas within each state. Note that the borders of the states were not all the same as today. The label for each state also tells you the date that the state ratified the Constitution.

Look at New York. How is it possible for a state that appears mostly against the Constitution to ratify it? Focus on the section of New York that is blue. The population living in that area was much higher, so more votes came from there.

Answer from: Quest

Concurrent jurisdiction is the ability to exercise judicial review by different courts at the same time, within the same territory, and over the same subject matter. for instance, a domestic violence matter may be heard in either a general civil court or a family court in the same county.i hope that this you : )

Answer from: Quest

the answer is either c or d i think its d

Another question on Social Studies

Social Studies, 21.06.2019 20:30

Scenario: the economy of country y has been in an economic downturn for the last several months. recently, businesses have invested in new technologies in order to produce the goods that consumers are demanding within the nation's own borders. the government has removed regulations to allow producers and consumers to have more financial freedom. as a result, consumer spending has increased and the economy has begun to improve. use the drop-down menus to complete the sentences. according to the information presented about country y, the classical economic concept of ( the invisible hand, consumer efficiency, government regulations) can be seen. the economic events of country y demonstrate the idea of laissez faire because the government (did, did not) intervene in economic events.

Answers: 1

Answer

Social Studies, 21.06.2019 21:30

The owner of a one-acre parcel of land with a small house on it rented the property to a professor of a nearby college at a monthly rental of $500. several years later, after the professor got tenure, the parties orally agreed that the professor would purchase the property from the owner for the sum of $60,000, payable at the rate of $500 a month for 10 years. they agreed that the owner would give the professor a deed to the property after five years had passed and $30,000 had been paid toward the purchase price, and that the professor would execute a note secured by a mortgage for the balance. the professor continued in possession of the property and made all monthly payments in a timely fashion. when he had paid $30,000, he tendered a proper note and mortgage to the property owner and demanded that she deliver the deed as agreed. the owner refused because valuable minerals had been discovered on adjacent parcels in recent months, causing the value of this parcel of land to increase to 10 times its former value. the professor brought suit against the property owner for specific performance. if the court rules in favor of the property owner, what is the likely reason?

Answers: 2

Answer

Social Studies, 22.06.2019 18:30

Explain the nazi cult of motherhood? (5 marks)

Answers: 1

Answer

Social Studies, 22.06.2019 19:30

On a production possibility curve, data points that fall outside of the curve represent what

Answers: 2

Answer

You know the right answer?

What was the purpose of checks and balances in the us government? why were these checks and balance...