The framers of the United States Constitution based our federal government on federalism. ... Federalism has evolved over the course of American history. Some important events have shaped the balance between the national and state governments so that federalism best suits the needs of the country at that time.
Even though im not writing the 2 paragraphs let me give you info about one of the cases: <span>Gibbons vs. Ogden: Federally issued permit vs. State (NY) issued permit to navigate waterways around New York. Marshall court re-emphasized Article VI (Supremacy) stating that federal law trumps state and this decision further emphasized the Commerce Clause stating that commerce was not defined solely as the buying and selling of goods, but the transportation thereof as well. Establishing that only the national Congress had the ability to regulate interstate trade, further strengthening the federal government over the states. This case as many affect the nature of federalism regarding its power, rights and roles. </span>
Answer:
Enslaved workers were considered to be property, not people.
As you can see in the second sentence, in the eyes of the law, he was not a man but a thing.
They were also a subject to a narrow minded and a tryannical master.
<span>The summary of the Peterson v. Wilmur Communications, Inc. lawsuit is already addressed in the question. The case had a summary judgement based upon two parts. Is the belief called "Creativity" a religion? And if Creativity is a religion, was Peterson demoted solely due to his belief in Creativity? This answer will only address the first question in the case.
Creativity does claim to be a religion, but does not claim any belief in an afterlife, or any sort of supreme being. The court had a two pronged approach as to the issue of Creativity being a religion. Were the plaintiff's beliefs "sincerely held"? The court ruled that the plaintiff did claim to sincerely believe in Creativity, and that the defendant offered no contrary evidence. So the first prong of the test was upheld. The second prong was does the plaintiff consider his belief in Creativity to be religious and that Creativity is a religion? The court considered that prong to also be true considering that the plaintiff was a Minister in The World Church of the Creator, and swore an oath upon becoming one over three years prior to the law suit.
So with the above summary in mind, let's look at the available choices.
a religion under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964, as unorthodox, and even as repulsive, as it was.
* This is a true statement and the correct choice.
not a religion under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 due to it being so unorthodox and repulsive in nature.
* The court did declare that Creativity was a religion, so this is a bad choice.
not a religion under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 because it espoused racial separation, which violated title vii.
* The court did declare that Creativity was a religion, so this is a bad choice.
a religion under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 because the claimant engaged in deity worship, a prerequisite to recognize any religious practice.
* Yes, Creativity is a religion. But no, it does not believe in a God or a supreme being. So this is a bad choice.</span>
