Supreme court justices who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the answer to which question?
a. should the supreme court rule on cases that have already been heard by lower courts?
b. how should new justices be selected for the supreme court in the event of a vacancy? c. to what extent should the supreme court work to promote social progress?
d. what is the value of concurring opinions that agree with a majority opinion?

The correct answer is C. Supreme Court justices who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the extent the Supreme Court should work to promote social progress, since the justices that support judicial activism seek to contribute to social progress through their decisions, while the justices who support judicial restraint believe that their decisions should not exceed the legally established framework for their performance, and that social policies should be carried out by the executive branch.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation:

“a committee reviews the bill and marks it up to make it more viable and to reflect interests