They have the least effect on the judicial branch. Judges are not permitted to discuss issues with or take favors from any others.
In the US, at least, interest groups, like individual citizens, can encourage legislators to propose legislation for any purpose they wish. At the federal level, only a Senator or member of the House of Representatives can officially introduce a bill for Congressional consideration.
They are all importent if one branch was gone our government would be screwed up
Legislative, at least most likely
Executive...I think you are thinking of a postition...presidential actually. Yes you have to be at least 35 years old and have been born in America. EXECUTIVE BRANCH
I would argue that the Legislative branch has at least two important powers over the judicial branch: 1) the ability to approve or reject presidential nominations for judicial office; 2) the power of impeachment over federal judges and justices.
If you are trying to refinance your mortgage... it will affect the interest rate. (it will be higher) It will haunt you for at least 12 - 24 months.
In the US, at least, interest groups, like individual citizens, can encourage legislators to propose legislation for any purpose they wish. At the federal level, only a Senator or member of the House of Representatives can officially introduce a bill for Congressional consideration.
Judicial Branch
Yes, or at least that is what many people believe. In truth, it remains a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Voter turnout is a serious problem. The government you have is the government you failed to vote against. The government you have is the one that special interest groups bought and paid for because of your failure to vote.
If interest groups gain too much power, then there are so many opposing viewpoints that progress is halted and nothing is accomplished. At least, that's the common argument. There's also the argument that interest groups are "only out for themselves" and not looking into the good of the public, but that's a weak argument because every political body, whether it's the Republicans or a third party or an interest group, is looking out only for itself. That is called politics.
The Church of England and also other Protestant groups, probably some were also Roman Catholics. I know at least one Jew who has become a Quaker.
Legislative, at least most likely
Supreme Court
You honestly view this as a science question? To be frank, any group, not just special interest groups use propaganda. That is what adverts are. And the obvious reason why any group or person would employ propaganda is to gain favor to their side (or at the very least reduce favor in the opposing side). I think a better question would be to look at the ethical implications of the degree of propaganda used by groups. If a 'cause' is worth supporting wouldn't it be safe to say that using only the facts should be enough to sway opinion? If it isn't perhaps the cause itself is not so worthy, or at the very least the group itself is suspect. Fact checking tells you not only a great deal about an issue, but it can also tell you (and perhaps sometimes more importantly) a great deal about the sides that support a 'cause'.
In a parallel circuit, each branch has the same voltage but different current flows. The branch with the highest resistance will have the least amount of current flow, as current follows the path of least resistance.
The branch of military service that Jefferson considered least threatening was the navy. He thought it was the branch that would be able to suppress Barbary states.
yes they do. they have at least 2 different blood groups.