An effect of the industrial revolution was that wages around the world varied. increased. decreased. stayed static.

What rules did the monroe doctrine set for the united states?

Explain why the judicial branch is considered the weakest branch. explain what might happen if the judicial branch could not separate itself from the other two branches. explain how a strong judiciary branch would maintain limited government and individual rights. explain why a law that contradicts the constitution must be ruled invalid. explain why the legislature may not determine if its laws are unconstitutional. hamilton argues that the judicial branch is not above the legislative branch. explain his reasoning. how is the problem solved when two laws passed by the same legislature contradict each other? explain why hamilton believes it is pointless to argue the power of judicial review will enable judges to rule in ways that serve their own interests. explain how life tenure is necessary for the judicial branch to be able to protect individual rights against a majority. explain how everyone benefits when the rights of individuals or groups are protected. explain how limited terms of office might discourage the best-qualified people.

Aplaintiff filed a civil action based on negligence against a defendant in federal district court, alleging that the defendant negligently ran a red light at an intersection and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing the plaintiff's injuries. a week after the close of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was negligent. with the motion, the plaintiff filed (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection, (ii) an affidavit of a witness who was driving the car behind him, which stated that the witness saw the entire incident and that the plaintiff's traffic signal was green as he approached and entered the intersection; and (iii) an affidavit of another witness, which stated that she saw the entire incident and that the defendant's signal had been red for several seconds before the defendant entered the intersection and was still red when the defendant entered the intersection. the defendant filed a response to the motion, noting that her answer denied negligence and further denied that her traffic signal was red, and argued that the issue of negligence and the issue of whether her traffic signal was red were in dispute, so those issues should be tried to a jury. how should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion?