In determining if a law or action is legal or not, the Supreme Court always refers back to the Constitution. Is it wise to refer back to a single document when interpreting modern law? What would happen if the courts referred to no document of laws or principles

the section of the chart that represents a point at which a bill needs approval from a majority of people in both chambers to advance is j, as this is the only section before the bill becomes law which has both rows (symbolizing the chambers) converging into one, meaning that the two parts of the congress have to approve of it before it can march on with the process.

no options provided, here,but the answer to this question is often: a historian cites a japanese newspaper article published a year after the end of world war ii in order to draw conclusions about the effect of the war on the japanese economy.

clearly from the answer, the historian alludes to historical sources,and records to aid in analyzing and drawing conclusion on the effect of the war on the economy of japan.

roosevelt, a progressive reformer, earned a reputation as a "trust buster" through his regulatory reforms and anti-trust prosecutions. his "square deal" included regulation of railroad rates and pure foods and drugs; he saw it as a fair deal for both the average citizen and the businessmen.