1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Afina-wow [57]
3 years ago
15

The Vikings had the greatest impact on invading Charlemagne’s kingdom. True False

History
1 answer:
Andru [333]3 years ago
7 0
I think the answer is true.
I hope this helps!
You might be interested in
How should the rebellious Southern states be reintegrated, both politically and economically, into the union?
KatRina [158]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although there are no options attached, we can say the following.

The rebellious Southern states would be reintegrated, both politically and economically, into the union in the following way.

After the end of the American Civil War, in 1893, Lincoln created the "10 percent plan," which represented the beginning of the reunification process. It required that 10 percent of the southerners that voted in the election of 1890 to take an oath of allegiance to the Union. If that happened, then the southern states could create their own state constitutions. US President Abraham Lincoln also ordered Reconstruction for the Southern States and gave these former Confederated states leeway to do Reconstruction at their own pace.

3 0
3 years ago
10 POINTS
netineya [11]

Answer:

Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.

Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.

Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.

However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.

Explanation:

nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx

6 0
3 years ago
Compare the results of the boston police strike and the steel strike?
Luden [163]

In the Boston Police Strike, Boston police officers went on strike on September 9, 1919. They sought recognition for their trade union and improvements in wages and working conditions. Police Commissioner Edwin Upton Curtis denied that police officers had any right to form a union, much less one affiliated with a larger organization like the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Attempts at reconciliation between the Commissioner and the police officers, particularly on the part of Boston's Mayor Andrew James Peters, failed.

During the strike, Boston experienced several nights of lawlessness. Several thousand members of the State Guard, supported by volunteers, restored order. Press reaction both locally and nationally described the strike as Bolshevik-inspired and directed at the destruction of civil society. The strikers were called "deserters" and "agents of Lenin."[1]

Samuel Gompers of the AFL recognized that the strike was damaging the cause of labor in the public mind and advised the strikers to return to work. Commissioner Curtis refused to re-hire the striking policemen. He was supported by Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge, whose rebuke of Gompers earned him a national reputation. The strike proved a setback for labor unions, and the AFL discontinued its attempts to organize police officers for another two decades. Coolidge won the Republican nomination for vice-president of the U.S. in the 1920 presidential election.n 1895, the Massachusetts legislature transferred control of the Boston police department from Boston's mayor to the governor of Massachusetts, whom it authorized to appoint a five-person board of commissioners to manage the department. In 1906, the legislature abolished that board and gave the governor the authority to name a single commissioner to a term of five years, subject to removal by the governor. The mayor and the city continued to have responsibility for the department's expenses and the physical working conditions of its employees, but the commissioner controlled department operations and the hiring, training, and discipline of the police officers.[2]

In 1918, the salary for patrolmen was set at $1,400 a year. Police officers had to buy their own uniforms and equipment which cost over $200. New recruits received $730 during their first year, which increased annually to $821.25 and $1000, and to $1,400 after six years.[3] In the years following World War I, inflation dramatically eroded the value of a police officer's salary. From 1913 to May 1919, the cost of living rose by 76%, while police wages rose just 18%.[2] Discontent and restiveness among the Boston police force grew as they compared their wages and found they were earning less than an unskilled steelworker, half as much as a carpenter or mechanic and 50 cents a day less than a streetcar conductor. Boston city laborers were earning a third more on an hourly basis.[3]

Police officers had an extensive list of grievances. They worked ten-hour shifts and typically recorded weekly totals between 75 and 90 hours.[a] They were not paid for time spent on court appearances.[2] They also objected to being required to perform such tasks as "delivering unpaid tax bills, surveying rooming houses, taking the census, or watching the polls at election" and checking the backgrounds of prospective jurors as well as serving as "errand boys" for their officers.[5] They complained about having to share beds and the lack of sanitation, baths, and toilets[2] at many of the 19 station houses where they were required to live, most of which dated to before the Civil War. The Court Street station had four toilets for 135 men, and one bathtub.


4 0
3 years ago
the south lost the war now they have to prove their loyalty to the united states if you were from the union what rules would you
blagie [28]
The civil war is most probably one of the best researched conflicts in world history. However, there is still a lot of space for discussion and speculation.
5 0
2 years ago
What first caused tensions to rise between the colonists and Britain?
Nata [24]
Parliament passed laws which caused an increase in colonist taxes
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • James Fennimore Cooper authored Rip Van Winkle in 1826.<br> t or f
    11·2 answers
  • Why did the people of Egypt and Nubia face few invasions
    8·1 answer
  • Which transportation issue was heavily debated in the early 1800s?
    12·2 answers
  • According to senator lodge, which two previous american foreign policies would the us be violating if it ratified the treaty of
    8·1 answer
  • Which of the following statements best identifies the theme of the myth of Athena and Poseidon’s contest for Athens?
    9·2 answers
  • Why did the United Nations update the Geneva Convention in 1949?
    14·1 answer
  • In the context of 1930s Europe, appeasement means:
    15·1 answer
  • Omggggg help me if you know at least 1 tell me plsssss :,,(
    11·1 answer
  • Who represents northeast Missouri (District 6) in the Missouri House
    10·1 answer
  • In Russia, communists tried to influence urban workers to revolt and overthrow the government. In China, Mao focused more on ___
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!