Question

1. what is a legal decision that serves as a rule for future cases?

a. precedent
b. civil rights
c. amicus curiae
d. dissenting opinion

1. what concern did the anti - federalists have about the necessary and proper clause?

a. it removed checks and balances
b. it gave congress limited authority
c. it allowed too much flexibility
d. it excessively limited state authority

1. which supreme court case ruled racial segregation in schools unconstitutional?

a. brown v. board of education
b. goss v. lopez
c. miranda v. arizona
d. roe v. wade

Explanation:

• For question 22, a precedent is a legal decision that serves as a rule for future cases. Civil rights are about equal treatment and freedoms, amicus curiae are "friends of the court" briefs, and a dissenting opinion is a judge's opposing view.
• For question 23, Anti - Federalists were concerned that the necessary and proper clause allowed too much flexibility for the federal government, potentially at the expense of state power.
• For question 24, Brown v. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional. Goss v. Lopez dealt with student due - process rights, Miranda v. Arizona established the Miranda rights, and Roe v. Wade concerned abortion rights.

Answer:

1. A. Precedent
2. C. It allowed too much flexibility
3. A. Brown v. Board of Education