Answer:
either 1 or 2.... hmmm I say just guess but 1 or 2
Answer: the answer is Labor law
Explanation:
In one or two sentences, describe the disadvantages of not having a budget.
The disadvantage of not having a budget include a dearth of savings, diminished financial stability, reckless spending, a greater chance of incurring debt, and increased financial worry.
What do you mean by budget?In a budget, planned expenses are expressed along with suggestions for how to fund them.
A budget can show a surplus of resources for later use or a shortfall where expenses are greater than revenue or other resources.
All of your financial objectives are solely speculative without a budget. The first step in setting aside money for the significant items you need to save for is to create a budget.
Therefore, the disadvantage of not having a budget include a dearth of savings, diminished financial stability, reckless spending, a greater chance of incurring debt, and increased financial worry.
To know more about the budget, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/15683430
#SPJ7
what is the meaning of presidency
Answer:
A presidency is an administration or the executive, the collective administrative and governmental entity that exists around an office of president of a state or nation.
Example : the office of president
Identify each of the following drugs.
Oxycodone
O Inhalant
O Stimulant
O Hallucinogen
O Depressant
O Narcotic
oxycodone is a narcotic
HELP PLS
‘Economics is the study of the production and consumption of goods (and services) and the transfer of wealth to produce and obtain those goods.’
Please tell me what this statement is saying in your own words
Answer:
Economics is the study of the products that are used up. These products include food, water, and health products.
List and describe the common problems found in police reports
Differentiate between sources of the law?
Answer: constitutions state and federal...
Explanation:
What did Anuradha Koirala do?
Answer:
Explanation:
Anuradha Koirala (born 14 April 1949) is a Nepalese social activist and the founder of Maiti Nepal – a non-profit organization in Nepal, dedicated to helping victims of sex trafficking.
in the plessy vs. ferguson , do you agree with the decision of the case? explain why or why not
pls helppppppp its a summary law
Answer:
I do not agree with the decision of the case. The "separate but equal" was a lie. The blacks were still separate, and not equal at all.
Resources- DO NOT COPY AND PASTE PLEASE:
Essential Question of the Case:
Is Louisiana's law requiring racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Background
In 1890, Louisiana passed a law called the Separate Car Act. This law said that railroad companies must provide separate but equal train cars for whites and blacks. Blacks had to sit with blacks and whites had to sit with whites. This act of separating people based on race is called segregation. Anyone who broke this law would have to pay a $25 fine or go to jail for 20 days.
Two groups of people wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the Separate Car Act. A group of black citizens who raised money to reverse the law worked together with the East Louisiana Railroad Company, which sought to end the Act mainly because of business and money reasons. They chose a 30-year-old shoemaker named Homer Plessy, a U.S. citizen who was one-eighth black and a Louisiana resident. On June 7, 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana and sat in the railroad car for "White" passengers. The railroad officials knew Plessy was coming and arrested him for violating the Separate Car Act.
Plessy argued in court that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the government treat people equally. John Howard Ferguson, the judge hearing the case, had stated in a previous court decision that the Separate Car Act was unconstitutional if applied to trains running outside of Louisiana. In this case, however, he declared that the law was constitutional for trains running within the state and found Plessy guilty. Plessy appealed the case to the Louisiana State Supreme Court, which agreed that the Louisiana law was constitutional. Plessy then took his case, Plessy v. Ferguson, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional Principles Related to the Case
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study
Plessy v. Ferguson | 1896 | Page Two
Decision & Impact
In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ferguson. The majority rejected Plessy’s Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment arguments and instead agreed with the idea of “separate but equal.”
The majority, in an opinion written by Associate Justice Henry Billings Brown, supported state based racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the idea of “separate but equal;” that separate facilities for blacks and whites did not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment as long as they were equal. (The phrase, "separate but equal" was not part of the opinion.)
Justice Brown agreed that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law. He identified that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment as “enforce[ing] the absolute equality of the two races before the law,” but then argued that “it could not have been intended to abolish [end] distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social…equality.” According to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment was only concerned with legal equality, the idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
Separate but equal is based on the idea that the facilities are kept in equal condition. However, this was not generally the case. The Plessy v. Ferguson decision impacted public institutions immediately. For example, education funding was often much less for African American schools, than for white schools. TThe Plessy v. Ferguson decision greatly impacted society. The idea of “separate but equal” led to racial segregation and states began creating “separate but equal” spaces in public places. his decision led to places in society that were separate, but not equal.