One of the biggest differences between the constitutions of nevada and the united states is that nevada allows for direct democracy where the voters can propose their own laws and amendments, nullify legislative actions, and recall elected officials. critics of the process contend that it is another way for interests groups and those with lots of resources to further influence the policy making process. do you think direct democracy is a “good” idea? why or why not? be sure to address how the process has been used in nevada. would this same process work at the federal level and to bypass partisan gridlock on some issues? why or why not? if it was used nationally should the supreme court be able to nullify the voters’ will?

answer; i do believe that the answer is (c) electrolyte imbalance or (d) cessation of menstrual cycle; plz check first good luck

idk if you found them already or not but you probably did but the one closer to sea level is raleigh.

d. i assume the underlined word is "role." reformat if it isn't.

explanation:

role is closest to part because when replacing words, "playing a vital decision," "playing a vital activity," and "playing a vital dollar" don't make logical sense. the only meaningful choice is "playing a vital part."

this fits one of merriam-webster's definitions of role: "a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process."

d

explanation:

it establishes america’s basic laws and fundamentals to its citizens.