Canada’s largest trading partner is __________

Answer:

Americans believe they have a right to vote for all elected officials who represent them, including the president. But nowhere does the Constitution guarantee that as an absolute right. Throughout our history, that ambiguity has made it easy for politicians and parties to disenfranchise people they do not want to vote. The Constitution requires the states to have a republican form of government, but that clause has never been understood to mandate universal suffrage. The framers left voting and citizenship almost entirely up to the individual states, notably in Article One, Section Four, which specified that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof” (although it stipulated that “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations”). From 1789 to 2019, the legislative and judicial branches have been cautious about interfering in what is presumed to be the prerogative of the individual states.

Since the Civil War, a series of constitutional amendments, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions have extended the right to vote, but always through negative prohibitions on what a state or locality may do. The lack of affirmative guarantees of the right to vote has repeatedly created space for legal disenfranchisement. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) barred voter disenfranchisement on the basis of race or color, just as the Nineteenth banned the use of gender (1920), and the Twenty-Sixth (1972) age (for anyone eighteen or older). The Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1965) outlawed requiring payment of a tax as a prerequisite for voting in federal (but not state or local) elections. Beginning with the 1962 Baker v. Carr decision, the Supreme Court required “one person/one vote” proportionality in allocating congressional, state, and local legislative districts. Finally, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965 gave the federal government the authority to intervene when state or municipal governments impeded voter registration or limited access to the polls.

It is the longer history that matters here. The VRA, the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, and related judicial decisions were extremely belated responses to sustained disenfranchisement. Between 1890 and 1908, nearly all of the southern states circumvented the Fifteenth Amendment through formally race-neutral legislation, including literacy tests, poll taxes, and the grandfather clause. All of these measures passed muster with the Supreme Court for many decades. Nor were such measures limited to the South. During the Progressive Era, numerous northern and western states mandated strict residency and registration regulations to limit voting by poor people, especially immigrants. Although most people assume the VRA covered only the South, its pre-clearance provisions (meaning the Department of Justice must approve changes in voting laws) have also applied to parts of New York City and some western states with large Native American populations because of prima facie evidence of racial disenfranchisement.

Most of the legal apparatus of disenfranchisement was dismantled in the 1950s and 1960s. But recent history demonstrates that none of the constitutional, judicial, and legislative precedents established then have prevented states from again disenfranchising large sections of their electorates. Since 2006, almost three dozen states have passed “voter identification” laws requiring documents that poor people, people of color, students, and older voters find expensive and difficult to procure. The result (and intent) is to disfranchise many thousands of otherwise-eligible voters, some of whom had voted for decades. In addition, unregulated purges of voting rolls based on arbitrary criteria have surged, also removing many from voter rolls. In all these instances, the Supreme Court has been wholly unwilling to intervene, and in 2013, its Shelby County v. Alabama decision gutted the Voting Rights Act’s provision requiring Department of Justice pre-clearance.

Explanation:

Lol sorry this isn't that simple of an answer, but I hope it helps!

Answer:

The people on the branches are mainly in charge of every thing

Explanation:

The chloroplast, large central vacuole are structures would provide a positive identification of a plant cell under a microscope.

What are the functions of these?

Chloroplast and large central vacuole are two structures that are typically present in plant cells and are used to positively identify a plant cell under a microscope.

Chloroplasts are membrane-bound organelles responsible for photosynthesis and contain the pigment chlorophyll, while the large central vacuole stores water and helps regulate the turgor pressure of the cell. These structures are absent in animal cells and therefore provide a clear distinction between plant and animal cells.

Read more on chloroplast here:brainly.com/question/3753872

#SPJ1

Answer: The area was nearly vacant for remodelling.

The flight that crashed into the Pentagon was American Airlines Flight 77, which was originally intended to go to Los Angeles. The crash killed all 64 people on board, including five hijackers and six crew, as well as 125 people in the building. However, the damage to the Pentagon was not as extensive as it could have been, as remodelling had recently been carried out and the area was nearly vacant.

Answer: Pluralism

Explanation:

Pluralism in this context is a social philosophy that allow people from different origin and with different idea coexist within a larger societal structure.