This statement explains the rationale used to justify the Supreme Court’s reversal of which long-standing legal doctrine?

the clear and present danger doctrine
the Manifest Destiny doctrine
the separate but equal doctrine
de facto segregation doctrine

Sorry but i need awnser choses to awnser this question

Prior to the creation of the us constitution, the general view of representative government is that it only worked in very small-scale environments- essentially a city-state or smaller. otherwise, the actual reflection of popular will declined in the representatives (ie, the difference between 1 representative per 100 citizens and 1 representative per 10,000 citizens), and generally the whole process became inefficient and self-destructive.james madison, however, was like 'no beezy'. he remarked that small republics were prone to faction and thus collapsed quickly. a large republic, he said, had so many interests and factions that none could rule, and thus they had to moderate and compromise.

If you are talking about typical sand you would find at the beach or in a river bed here on earth, there are some differences. i would say the first biggest difference is in composition and mineral make up. although the moon is largely made of the same materials as earth’s mantle and surface, the moon experiences very little weathering (no liquid water and virtually no atmosphere). “earth” sand is typically composed mostly of quartz grains. this is because quartz is highly resistant to both physical and chemical weathering. most of the other minerals originally with the quartz are broken down into fine clay and carried away, chemically eroded/ dissolved, or some combination of the two. this usually leaves only the quartz behind, and so most of the time when you see/think of sand, you are talking about quartz. without these weathering mechanisms on the moon, the “sand” (which is likely more silt or clay sized grains anyways) would consist of mostly other minerals like anorthosite, olivine, and proxene.

: )