"Preemption has gained a new valence during this time of heightened political polarization. Tensions between governors and mayors have escalated in past few years with the tendency of republican-leaning state legislatures to preempt and even punish democratic-leaning local governments for enacting policies such as designating themselves as a “sanctuary city” to shield their undocumented immigrant population from the harsh deportation practices of the federal government. Mayors pushing progressive agendas are increasingly running into a wall of conservative state resistance through what some view as aggressive, and even “nuclear”, state preemption. There are hints of resistance that runs the other way as well, with more conservative cities and counties enacting “second amendment sanctuary” resolutions in response to the adoption of stricter gun controls by more progressive state legislatures." How does partisanship, or party politics, cause tension in a federalist government system?

By supporting contradicting policies.

Explanation:

The federalist government system is run by dividing the countries into smaller states. The country with give the state government with the power to regulate their own territory while still following the advice/directions from the central government.

A problem arise when different political parties started to take control over the government.

These parties usually have their own ideologies. So, the way the view how to solve certain issues are also different.  This caused a lot of infighting within the government body to determine which legislations should be passed by the government. This is what causing the tension within the federalist government.

answer: ‘no one should be discriminated against because he or she is not from a minority group’

because—> affirmative action means ‘a policy or program that provides opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged groups to them overcome the effects of discrimination’

question 1: the kuwaiti government announced us$1.5 million in aid for rohingya refugees.they pointed out that it was imperative to take immediate and concrete steps to ramp up pressure on myanmar to put an end to the violence.and said   that they r just shameful

question 2: the rohingyas were not aloud to be seen as people in myanmar.in the last few years, before the latest crisis, thousands of rohingya were making perilous journeys out of myanmar to escape communal violence or alleged abuses by the security forces.the latest exodus began on 25 august 2017 after rohingya arsa militants launched deadly attacks on more than 30 police posts.rohingyas arriving in an area known as cox's bazaar - a district in bangladesh - say they fled after troops, backed by local buddhist mobs, responded by burning their villages and attacking and killing civilians.