Question refers to the excerpt below. "If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not
enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation
to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justity
its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual They (the writers of the Constitution and its amendments) knew times can blind us to certain truths
and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can
invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. Justice Anthony Kennedy, from the Opinion of the Court in Lawrence v Texas, 2003

Which of the following trends in U. S. society does this ruling reflect?

Public opposition toward government involvement in private life

Continued calls to enforce standards of traditional morality

Disconnect between court rulings and public attitudes

Greater awareness and acceptance of diverse lifestyles

in this way, as a created nation, france will probably use socio-economic reasons   at times do not take into account national economic, cultural, and social differences in protected industries. losing sovereignty, national independence.

hope this

mark other guy brainliest

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

on 6 november american voters will elect members of the house of representatives and the senate, which together are called congress.

both houses of congress are currently controlled by the republican party, which backs president donald trump.

the democrats think they can win control of the house of representatives this year by winning a majority of seats.

doing so would let them block or delay the president’s plans by refusing to enact them.

all 435 seats in the house of representatives are up for election.

if the democrats want to take control of the house by having the most seats, they’re going to have to claim at least 23 from the republicans.

graphic: the battle for the house of representatives